"Refusing rides is not considered rejection when passengers change destinations after booking a taxi through the app"

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission Central Administrative Appeals Committee: "Refusal of Ride in This Case is Justified"

[Sejong=Asia Economy Reporter Moon Chaeseok] An administrative adjudication result has ruled that if a passenger who booked a taxi destination via a mobile application unilaterally changes the destination immediately after boarding, making it impossible to proceed with the ride, it cannot be considered a 'refusal of boarding.' It was deemed a 'justifiable reason' for refusal of boarding.

The Central Administrative Adjudication Committee under the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission announced on the 22nd that it decided to cancel the disciplinary action imposed by the Seoul Metropolitan Government on a taxi driver who was warned for refusal of boarding after filing an administrative adjudication request.

The committee judged, "According to the 'Seoul Metropolitan Taxi Transportation Business Terms and Conditions,' a transportation contract is established once the passenger boards the taxi, and the passenger can present the destination and necessary details. However, even if the contract is established, the destination should be regarded as the one originally reserved through the mobile app." It noted that if taxi drivers cannot refuse a passenger who changes the destination after boarding, it could be exploited frequently by booking and boarding for long-distance destinations and then attempting to change the destination.

Passenger A designated 'Mia-ri,' about 20 km away, as the destination via a mobile app to call a taxi, but immediately after boarding, changed the destination to 'Songpa-dong,' about 1 km away. When taxi driver B said, "You should not use calls like this," A became upset, and after an argument, got off voluntarily and reported B to the Seoul Metropolitan Government for refusal of boarding.

The Seoul Metropolitan Government stated that under the 'Seoul Metropolitan Taxi Transportation Business Terms and Conditions,' a transportation contract is established when the passenger boards, and boarding by call is the same, thus issuing a warning to B for refusal of boarding. B filed an administrative adjudication with the Central Administrative Adjudication Committee, claiming that A's change of destination immediately after boarding was a deliberate false call and requested cancellation of the warning.

Min Seongsim, Director of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau at the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, said, "Recently, taxi calls via mobile apps have become a common service, and companies are providing various types of services. If refusal of boarding is not interpreted flexibly, it could be disadvantageous to taxi drivers."

Director Min added, "To protect the rights and interests of taxi drivers from passengers' abusive behaviors such as false reservation dispatches and unreasonable destination changes, we plan to request the relevant departments to prepare system improvement measures that establish special provisions for taxi boarding via mobile app calls."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.