Korean Air Loses Lawsuit Against Ministry of Land for Over 300 Million Won Fine

Korean Air Aircraft [Image Source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] Korean Air filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the 300 million KRW fine imposed by the government following the 2018 incident of lighting damage on the taxiway at Fukuoka Airport, Japan, but lost the case.

According to the legal community on the 25th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 13 (Chief Judge Nakwon Jang) ruled against Korean Air in the lawsuit filed against the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to cancel the fine imposition. The court stated, "The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's disposition in this case has no procedural defects, and it is difficult to see that it violates the principles of proportionality or equality or exceeds the limits of the discretion granted."

Previously, Korean Air Flight 798, while taxiing on the ground to take off from Fukuoka Airport to Gimhae Airport in December 2018, damaged two lights by taxiing along the edge rather than the center of the designated taxiway. In response, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport held an administrative disciplinary committee for the aviation sector in October of the following year and imposed a fine of 300 million KRW on Korean Air. Korean Air filed a lawsuit in January last year, objecting to this disposition.

In court, Korean Air argued that the Ministry's fine was an improper duplicate punishment. They contended that since they had already received a recommendation for improvement from the Ministry in August 2019 prior to the fine, holding them responsible again for the same incident was illegal. However, the court judged this claim by stating, "The recommendation for improvement is considered an administrative guidance prior to an administrative order and cannot be regarded as equivalent to the fine imposition."

Korean Air also claimed that the fine was excessively heavy compared to the violation and that the Ministry had abused or exceeded its discretion. Regarding this claim, the court ruled, "At the time, there were 177 passengers on board the aircraft, so considerable damage could have occurred due to the violation. The purpose of this disposition to urge caution on air transport operators and prevent damage that could affect many people is justified."