{"id":68931,"date":"2026-06-29T21:40:34","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T21:40:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/68931\/"},"modified":"2026-06-29T21:40:34","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T21:40:34","slug":"seoul-court-issues-easy-read-ruling-for-person-with-intellectual-disability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/68931\/","title":{"rendered":"Seoul Court Issues ‘Easy-Read’ Ruling for Person with Intellectual Disability"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"AnAn “easy-read” ruling written by the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 7 (Chief Presiding Judge Kang Woo-chan) for an intellectually disabled person, A. Photo courtesy of the Seoul Administrative Court.<\/p>\n

The Seoul Administrative Court recently issued a ruling designed to accommodate a person with an intellectual disability, identified as A. So that A, who filed a lawsuit against a district office, could understand its contents, the court explained the reasons for the ruling using the simplest possible words and placed illustrations throughout the document.<\/p>\n

According to legal circles Wednesday, the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 7 (presiding judge Kang Woo-chan) ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the 25th of this month in a lawsuit A filed against the head of Yangcheon District Office seeking “the cancellation of a decision finding the disability did not qualify,” and provided this “easy-read” ruling. It is the first easy-read ruling written under the “Guidelines for Judicial Support for the Socially Vulnerable, Including Persons with Disabilities,” which the Supreme Court implemented this year.<\/p>\n

Easy-read is a method of conveying information in an easily understandable way through simple text and supporting illustrations. It can be used by people with developmental disabilities, children, the elderly, and others who find it difficult to understand the contents of conventional rulings.<\/p>\n

\"AnAn “easy-read” ruling written by the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 7 (Chief Presiding Judge Kang Woo-chan) for an intellectually disabled person, A. Photo courtesy of the Seoul Administrative Court.<\/p>\n

The court set up a separate section at the front of the ruling to explain the gist of the decision, stating, “This text tells you why the court made this decision. It is good for the person who filed the case to read.” Over three pages, the court kindly explained the result that A won the lawsuit, the arguments made by the defendant district office, the reasons the court judged the district office’s decision to be wrong, and the result that the district office’s decision would be voided in accordance with the ruling.<\/p>\n

Considering that A would read the ruling directly, the plaintiff was referred to as “you,” and the document also included guidance saying, “If you have further questions, please ask your legal aid attorney.”<\/p>\n

The court issued the ruling taking A’s circumstances into account as much as possible. Citing the text of the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), and the recently enacted Act on Guarantee of Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the book “Faces of Intellectual Disability” by Licia Carlson, a philosophy professor at Providence College in the United States, the court noted that intellectual disability should not be judged on intelligence quotient alone. “The intellectual disability defined under the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act cannot be judged simply by intelligence quotient, and must ultimately be judged by whether the impairment of intellectual ability causes significant restrictions in daily and social life,” the court explained.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"An “easy-read” ruling written by the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 7 (Chief Presiding Judge Kang Woo-chan) for…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":68932,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[37963,37964,37965,37969,112,15839,37967,37966,37968],"class_list":["post-68931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-seoul","tag-easy-read-ruling","tag-intellectual-disability","tag-judicial-support","tag-legal-accessibility","tag-seoul","tag-seoul-administrative-court","tag-uncrpd","tag-welfare-of-persons-with-disabilities-act","tag-yangcheon-district-office"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68931\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/68932"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}