The Supreme Court has ruled that the Korea Football Association's regulation permanently banning coaches who receive a suspension of one year or more for violent conduct is invalid. While the disciplinary action itself was deemed appropriate, it was determined that it excessively infringes on the freedom of professional choice.
According to Yonhap News on September 6, the Supreme Court's first division, led by Justice Cheon Dae-yeop, recently upheld a lower court's ruling that partially favored A, a former university soccer team coach, in his lawsuit against the football association seeking to invalidate the disciplinary action.
A was suspended for one year by the football association's Fairness Committee in December 2022 after he physically confronted a referee following his team's loss in a university soccer tournament in November 2022.
The conflict escalated after A applied to re-register as a coach in December 2023. However, the football association denied his application, citing a revised registration rule that prohibits individuals who have received a suspension of one year or more for violence from registering as coaches. Consequently, A filed a lawsuit to confirm that the disciplinary action was invalid and that he was eligible to be a coach.
Both the first and second trial courts acknowledged A's violent conduct towards the referee and deemed the one-year suspension a legitimate exercise of the association's discretion. However, they ruled that the regulation imposing a permanent ban on registration was invalid.
The first trial referenced Article 103 of the Civil Act, which states that legal acts violating public morals and social order are void. The second trial noted that the regulation excessively restricts the constitutional freedom of professional choice. It also pointed out that individuals sentenced to imprisonment for more than a year can still register as coaches after a certain period, highlighting a lack of fairness in the association's approach.
The Supreme Court dismissed the football association's appeal and confirmed the lower court's ruling. The court acknowledged that the registration regulation was likely introduced to eradicate the violence that had been prevalent in the sports community, and its legitimacy is recognized. However, it emphasized that the basic human rights of individual members guaranteed by the constitution should not be excessively infringed or restricted.
The court found that imposing a blanket permanent registration ban without considering the specifics of the violence, such as the target, circumstances, and means, was excessive. It concluded that a suspension of one year or more effectively functions as a 'permanent expulsion,' which risks losing balance between the degree of responsibility and the resulting disadvantages.
Additionally, the court noted that retroactively applying the newly established permanent registration ban, which did not exist at the time of the disciplinary action, without any transitional provisions violates the principle of protection of trust.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.