<Anchor> The



court temporarily suspended the effect of mandatory quarantine passes for private academies, reading rooms, and study cafes. The reasons were cited as not only discriminatory measures against those who are not vaccinated, but also infringing upon freedom of education and freedom of choice of profession.



This is reporter Han So-hee.



<Reporter> The



court accepted the application for suspension of enforcement by private education groups, etc., asking to suspend the government's quarantine pass for private institutes, reading rooms, and study cafes.



The court cited the reason for the decision that the application of the quarantine pass restricts the learning rights of those who are not vaccinated, thereby infringing upon their freedom of education and choice of profession.



In fact, forcing vaccination in a way that restricts the use of hagwons and reading rooms violates the right to self-determination about the body.



[Lee Seung-jae / Public Affairs Judge of Seoul Administrative Court: Freedom of education, freedom of choice of occupation, and freedom of self-determination regarding the body are prevented from fully exercising the right to self-determination, which is a significant disadvantage only to the unvaccinated group… .] He



also pointed out that a significant number of breakthrough infections among vaccinated people are occurring, and that the risk of spreading Corona in the unvaccinated group is not significantly greater than that of the vaccinated group.



Due to a court decision, the quarantine pass policy for private academies, reading rooms, and study cafes is suspended until the verdict of the original case is issued.



[Kim Kwang-Hwi / High School Student: When I go to a study cafe, I concentrate better than at home, but when I don’t get the vaccine, I can’t enter, so it’s uncomfortable, but I think it’s good because the discomfort disappears.]



The schedule for the main lawsuit to determine the validity of the quarantine pass policy for private schools, etc. has not been decided yet.



The court said it was focusing on prudent judgment rather than rushing the deadline.