Hello, this is attorney Eom Sang-yoon of Cheongchul Law Firm.

Sports associations and various professional organizations set membership qualifications through their articles of association and internal rules, and impose disciplinary sanctions on members who breach certain obligations. To maintain expertise and order in the field, an organization needs the autonomy to set and enforce its own operating standards. Strict sanctions may be particularly warranted for conduct such as violence, which undermines the safety of members and trust in the organization.

The problem arises when such internal rules effectively bar a member from their occupation permanently. If a person who received a fixed-term suspension has fully served the disciplinary period but can never work in the field again because of a separate registration rule, the result may be practically no different from permanent expulsion.

Recently, in Supreme Court Decision 2026Da202519 rendered on July 16, 2026 (대법원 2026. 7. 16. 선고 2026다202519 판결), the Supreme Court held that a football association's internal rule permanently barring coach registration for anyone disciplined with a suspension of one year or more for violence was void. Below, we review the key points of the decision and its implications for how associations and organizations operate their qualification restrictions and disciplinary rules.

A Case Where a One-Year Suspension Became a Permanent Ban on Activity

The plaintiff in this case, while serving as head coach of a university football team, received a one-year suspension for assaulting a referee and excessively protesting a call. After the disciplinary period ended, the plaintiff applied for coach registration, but the association refused on the basis of its internal registration rules.

The rule at issue restricted coach registration for anyone who had received a suspension of one year or more for violence. Under this rule, a person so disciplined could never register as a coach, without any exception.

Moreover, the association's disciplinary standards required a suspension of at least one year or expulsion whenever a coach committed an act of violence, without distinguishing the victim, means, or method. As a result, absent special circumstances such as mitigation, a coach disciplined for violence could hardly return to coaching even after the disciplinary period ended. The combination of a fixed-term sanction and a separate registration restriction led to what was effectively a permanent exclusion from the occupation.

Legal Limits Apply Even to an Organization's Internal Rules

An entity's articles of association and internal rules are norms established through the organization's autonomous decision-making and are, in principle, respected. The Supreme Court has likewise taken the position that an organization's internal rules should be given effect absent special circumstances, such as where they violate good morals or public order to the point of being manifestly unreasonable by social standards, or where the decision-making procedure is grossly unjust.

However, an organization's autonomy does not provide a basis for infringing members' fundamental rights without limit. Even when setting self-governing norms, an organization may not excessively restrict members' fundamental human rights beyond what is necessary and reasonable, nor may it violate mandatory law.

This raises the question of how constitutional fundamental rights operate in relationships between private parties. Fundamental rights function to protect individuals from state power, but legal relationships between private parties must also be regulated in a manner consistent with the values those rights pursue. Except in exceptional cases where they apply directly by their nature, however, fundamental rights provisions take effect indirectly, serving as interpretive standards for provisions such as the principle of good faith under Civil Act Article 2 (민법 제2조) and the rule on juristic acts contrary to social order under Civil Act Article 103 (민법 제103조).

In this case as well, the Supreme Court held that the registration rule was void under Civil Act Article 103 (민법 제103조) and related provisions, on the ground that it excessively infringed members' constitutional freedom of occupation. In other words, the mere fact that an organization adopted a rule through its internal procedures does not by itself establish the legitimacy of its content.

The Problems with a Permanent Registration Ban Highlighted by the Supreme Court

The Practical Effect of the Association's Refusal to Register

The Supreme Court first noted that the association effectively governs every football competition held in Korea and that no other football association exists in the country. In such circumstances, if the association refuses to register a coach, working as a coach in Korea becomes practically impossible.

In assessing the impact of a registration restriction, what matters is not only the wording of the rule but also the actual position the organization holds. If registration with the organization is a de facto prerequisite for practicing a particular occupation, a refusal to register directly affects the member's livelihood and professional activity.

A Uniform Restriction That Fails to Reflect the Gravity of the Conduct

The purpose of the rule, eradicating violence, was recognized as legitimate. However, whether the means chosen to achieve that purpose are proportionate to the degree of culpability must be examined separately.

The rule at issue could lead to a permanent registration ban without adequately distinguishing specific circumstances such as the severity of the assault, its cause, background, motive, or whether the harm was remedied. It was also difficult to individually consider how closely the act of violence related to the trust and qualities required of a coach.

As a result, there was a real possibility of a marked imbalance between the degree of responsibility for the conduct and the disadvantage of being permanently unable to work as a coach. The goal of responding firmly to violence alone does not justify imposing the same permanent restriction in every case.

Permanent Exclusion Without Exception

The absence of any exception to the registration restriction was also an important factor. The rule in this case permanently foreclosed any future possibility of coach registration solely on the basis of a disciplinary record at a certain level.

That said, this decision should not be understood to mean that every permanent qualification restriction is automatically void. The Supreme Court assessed the validity of the rule by considering, taken together, the association's de facto monopoly, its broad disciplinary standards for violence, a structure that failed to reflect individual circumstances, and a permanent restriction without exception. The rules of other organizations must likewise be reviewed concretely in light of the purpose and intensity of the restriction, those subject to it, and the actual disadvantage imposed.

Implications for How Associations and Organizations Operate Their Rules

Disciplinary Rules and Registration Rules Must Be Reviewed Together

From the perspective of an association or organization, disciplinary rules and rules on membership qualification or registration need to be reviewed in an integrated manner. Even if the disciplinary rules provide only for a fixed-term suspension, if a separate rule treats that disciplinary record as a permanent disqualification, the disadvantage actually suffered by the member can be far greater.

Accordingly, (i) the content of the discipline itself, (ii) the registration and activity restrictions accompanying the discipline, and (iii) the disadvantages that persist after the discipline ends must be examined together. Reviewing each rule in isolation makes it difficult to accurately grasp the overall intensity and effect of the sanction.

The Severity of the Sanction Must Be Linked to Individual Circumstances

To reflect the spirit of this decision in rule revisions, organizations should confirm that the gravity of the conduct and the level of sanction are appropriately linked. It is necessary to check whether the structure allows review of factors such as the type and degree of the violation, whether it was repeated, whether the harm was remedied, and how it relates to the trust required for the activity in question.

Where a long-term restriction on activity is imposed, organizations may also consider whether its necessity can be assessed on an individual basis and whether a procedure exists to review re-examination or reinstatement under certain conditions. Such procedures can be a practical means of reducing excessive restrictions on rights while preserving the purpose of the sanction.

Members Should Distinguish Between the Basis and the Effect of the Restriction

A member who has been refused registration or activity should first determine whether the refusal is based on discipline currently in effect or on a separate disqualification rule tied to a past disciplinary record. The member should then examine the scope and duration of the activity restricted by the rule, whether activity is possible through other channels, and whether any procedure exists to take individual circumstances into account.

In litigation, it is important to explain not only the wording of the internal rule but also the extent to which the rule actually blocks professional activity. If the organization's refusal to register makes activity in the field practically impossible, this can be a significant factor in assessing the validity of the rule.

This decision shows that while an organization's autonomous regulatory authority is respected, that authority becomes subject to judicial review when it excessively restricts members' professional activity. The more broadly an association or organization controls its members' opportunities to work, the more carefully it must examine the substance and proportionality of the disadvantages its internal rules impose. Reviewing the purpose of the discipline, the degree of responsibility, and the duration of the activity restriction together with the possibility of reinstatement can be the starting point for securing the legitimacy of the rules and preventing disputes.