Court Rules "Convenience Stores Under 300㎡ Must Also Install Accessibility Facilities for Disabled"

Seoul Central District Court. / Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A court ruling has declared that the enforcement decree exempting the 'mandatory installation of convenience facilities' for disabled access in retail stores under 300㎡ is incorrect. This ruling comes from a lawsuit filed by a disability organization in 2018 demanding "guaranteed access rights for the disabled" against corporations.

On the morning of the 10th, the Civil Division 30 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Han Seongsu) partially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, including a disabled person A, in a discrimination relief and damages claim lawsuit filed against GS Retail and others.

Article 18, Paragraph 4 of the current Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Disabled Persons stipulates that the scope of facilities obligated to provide reasonable convenience, such as installing convenience facilities (target facilities), should be defined by an enforcement decree. However, the enforcement decree requires a floor area of 300㎡ or more for supermarkets, retail stores, general restaurants, rest restaurants, bakeries, etc., thereby excluding most private public-use facilities from the target facilities.

The court emphasized, "(This enforcement decree) is invalid as it violates the principle of equality, so since the enforcement decree provision exempting the obligation to install convenience facilities for the disabled is invalid, failure to install convenience facilities constitutes discriminatory conduct refusing to provide reasonable convenience."

If this ruling is finalized, GS Retail must equip convenience stores newly built, expanded, or remodeled after April 11, 2009, with accessible pathways or portable ramps for the disabled, or install an external staff call bell. Additionally, the company must recommend such store environment improvements to franchisees and bear at least 20% of the improvement costs.

However, the damages claim filed together, arguing "the state caused harm by not revising the enforcement decree," was not accepted. The court explained, "the expansion of target facilities should be pursued considering social and economic conditions, societal sensitivity to disability, and the state's financial circumstances," and "it cannot be seen that individual public officials have an obligation to revise Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Convenience for Disabled Persons with specific content."