Suit sought 3.7 billion won in annual losses
Constitutional challenge also dismissed
Seoul Metro lost a lawsuit seeking to make the state cover 3.7 billion won ($2.76 million) in annual losses caused by free subway rides for national merit recipients. The court found no legal basis requiring the government to bear such losses.
According to Yonhap on Wednesday, the 36th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court, led by Judge Kwon Tae-kwan, dismissed the plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit Seoul Metro filed against the state over subsidy payments and related demands.
The court also rejected Seoul Metro's request for a constitutional review of the law that limits state subsidy support to within budget bounds. Seoul Metro had filed the lawsuit against the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans in July 2025, seeking compensation for 3.7 billion won in losses incurred in 2024 from free rides granted to national merit recipients.
Under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, national merit recipients are entitled to free subway rides. The law also allows the state to provide subsidies, within budget limits, to operators that offer such free-ride services.
Seoul Metro argued that the state should compensate it for losses stemming from this mandatory free-ride obligation, but the court disagreed.
The court ruled that revenue lost from free rides amounts to a "social constraint" that operators must accept for the public good, and does not necessarily obligate the state to cover the losses.
The court also noted that it was the national merit recipients, not the state, who benefited from the free rides in terms of cost savings, adding, "There is no basis to conclude that the state has an obligation to bear the cost of free transportation."
Regarding the provision allowing subsidies within budget limits, the court explained that the clause "instead establishes the legal basis for the state to be able to provide subsidies."
The court also rejected Seoul Metro's argument that it was discriminatory for the state to compensate costs from free rides on national railways while excluding urban rail operators like itself.
"National railways and urban railways differ in terms of who invests in and operates them — the state versus local governments," the court said. "There are also differences in the geographic scope of routes, fares and passenger volume, making it difficult to view them as essentially identical."
The court also dismissed the claim that the government's failure to establish separate subsidy criteria was unlawful, concluding that "the absence of separate administrative legislation does not automatically mean the government's inaction was unlawful."
woo@heraldcorp.com
