【Holding】
[1] Whether private legal relationships between private persons must also be regulated in conformity with the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights (affirmative), and whether the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights, except those that by their nature can be directly applied to private law relationships, indirectly affect private law relationships by shaping the content of, and serving as interpretive standards for, Articles 2 and 103 of the Civil Act, etc., which set out the general principles of private law (affirmative)
[2] Criteria for determining the validity of internal rules of an organization, such as the articles of incorporation of a corporation, and the effect (nullity) of autonomous rules that excessively infringe or restrict the fundamental human rights of individual members guaranteed by the Constitution beyond a necessary and reasonable scope or whose content violates mandatory provisions
[3] In a case where A, an incorporated association that is the member sports (football) organization of the Korean Sport & Olympic Committee, imposed a one-year suspension of qualification on B, the head coach of a university football team, on the grounds of "violence against a referee" and "excessive protest against a decision," and when B applied to A for registration as a coach after the suspension period ended, A refused on the basis of its registration rules restricting the registration as coaches of persons who received disciplinary suspension of one year or more for acts of violence, the Court held that, in light of all the circumstances, the registration rules excessively infringe the members' constitutional freedom to choose an occupation and are thus void under Article 103 of the Civil Act, etc.
[4] Whether the reasons of a written judgment must state determinations on all of the parties' assertions or means of offense and defense (negative), and whether there is an unlawful omission of determination where no specific and direct determination on a matter asserted by a party is stated but whether that assertion was accepted can be discerned from the overall purport of the reasons for the judgment (negative)
【Summary of Decision】
[1] Although constitutional fundamental rights are primarily defensive rights protecting the free sphere of individuals from infringement by public authority, they also embody the objective value order that constitutes the fundamental decision of the Constitution and influence all areas of law, including private law; accordingly, private legal relationships between private persons must also be regulated in conformity with the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights. However, except in exceptional cases where they can by their nature be directly applied to private law relationships, the provisions on fundamental rights indirectly affect private law relationships by shaping the content of, and serving as interpretive standards for, Articles 2 and 103 of the Civil Act, etc., which set out the general principles of private law.
[2] Internal rules of an organization, such as the articles of incorporation of a corporation and the rules for detailed operations thereunder, must, absent special circumstances, be recognized as valid except where they are found to be remarkably lacking in validity under social norms, such as by violating good morals or other social order, or where the procedure for their adoption is found to be remarkably contrary to justice; however, even in enacting autonomous rules, there are restrictions such as that they must not excessively infringe or restrict the fundamental human rights of individual members guaranteed by the Constitution beyond a necessary and reasonable scope and that their content must not violate mandatory provisions, and provisions of autonomous rules that violate such restrictions are void.
[3] In a case where A, an incorporated association that is the member sports (football) organization of the Korean Sport & Olympic Committee, imposed a one-year suspension of qualification on B, the head coach of a university football team, on the grounds of "violence against a referee" and "excessive protest against a decision," and when B applied to A for registration as a coach after the suspension period ended, A refused on the basis of its registration rules restricting the registration as coaches of persons who received disciplinary suspension of one year or more for acts of violence, the Court held as follows: the registration rules were introduced for the purpose of eradicating violence that had been prevalent in the sports community in the past, and the legitimacy of that purpose is recognized; however, A in effect governs all football competitions held in Korea and there is no football association in Korea other than A, so that if A refuses registration as a coach, it is practically impossible to work as a coach in Korea; under the registration rules, a person who has received a disciplinary suspension of one year or more for violence is permanently barred from registration as a coach without any exception, and since A's disciplinary standards provide that a coach who commits an act of violence shall be subject to suspension of qualification of one year or more or expulsion regardless of the other party, means, or method, a coach involved in violence is highly likely, absent special circumstances such as mitigation of discipline, to be permanently barred from registration as a coach regardless of the specific circumstances, such as the degree, cause, background, and motive of the assault and whether the damage was redressed, and regardless of the degree of relevance between the violence and the trust in and qualifications of the person as a coach, so that there is a constant possibility of a remarkable imbalance between the degree of responsibility for the violence and the resulting disadvantage. Considering these circumstances comprehensively, the registration rules excessively infringe the members' constitutional freedom to choose an occupation and are properly regarded as void under Article 103 of the Civil Act, etc.
[4] It suffices for the reasons of a written judgment to state determinations on the parties' assertions and other means of offense and defense to the extent that the disposition can be recognized as justified, and it is not necessary to make determinations on all of the parties' assertions or means of offense and defense (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if a court's judgment does not state a specific and direct determination on a matter asserted by a party, there is no omission of determination as long as it can be discerned from the overall purport of the reasons for the judgment that the assertion was accepted or rejected.
【Referenced Statutes】
[1] Articles 2 and 103 of the Civil Act [2] Articles 40 and 103 of the Civil Act [3] Article 15 of the Constitution; Articles 2 and 103 of the Civil Act [4] Articles 208 and 423 of the Civil Procedure Act
【Referenced Precedents】
[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da38288, April 22, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 897)
[2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da65086, February 22, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 750)
Supreme Court Order 2006Ma635, July 24, 2007
[4] Supreme Court Decision 2006JaeDa218, July 10, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1146)
Supreme Court Decision 2011Da87174, April 26, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 863)
(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2026Da202519, July 16, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)
2026. 10. 14. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail