長久以來，我國職業同業公會之定位一直存有很大之爭議，學說上有將其定性為公法社團，司法實務則因法無明文，只能將其定性為私法社團，然而職業同業公會採業必歸會制度，社員犧牲結社自由達成公共利益，且職業同業公會有類公權力行使，故本文將其定性為準公法社團。我國職業同業公會發展歷史與日本發展較為接近，並沒有歐陸自由化運動的風潮洗禮，而是建構在制度性保障，因此日本法制的發展面實屬我國職業同業公會發展的借鏡，在日本法制的發展中，雖然肯定強制會員制的合法性，但是卻表明職業同業公會不同於公司，不完全適用社團自治，且總會決議不得違反法規或章程之目的外行為，也不得利用多數決方式侵害社員思想、信念自由，另外對於職業同業公會涉入政治性行為表示其違法性，此種見解值得我國高度重視。本文認為不可完全適用私法社團之規定，亦即對於社團自治須有所限縮，職業同業公會雖然為私法社團，但在組織結構及運作須遵循民主原則，並在若干情況下遵循公法原理原則，換言之係建構在公私法交錯適用中。另外，職業同業公會之章程及總會決議應考量法律授權範圍下之限制，不得任意規定，而社員協力義務則採分離論並應考量不得以多數決之方式破壞社員憲法上之基本權。

For a long time, there has been considerable controversy over the classification of professional guilds in our country. While some scholars classify them as public law associations, judicial practice, in the absence of explicit legal provisions, tends to categorize them as private law associations. However due to the mandatory membership system adopted by professional guilds, where members sacrifice their freedom of association to achieve public interests, and the exercise of quasi-public powers by these guilds, this article categorizes them as quasi-public law associations. The historical development of professional guilds in our country closely resembles that of Japan, lacking the trend of continental liberalization movements. Instead, it is constructed on institutional safeguards. Therefore, the legal development in Japan serves as a valuable reference for the development of professional guilds in our country. The legal development of Japan, despite recognizing the legality of the mandatory membership system, explicitly states that professional guilds, unlike corporations, do not fully apply the principle of association autonomy. It emphasizes that general meeting resolutions must not violate legal regulations, or the objectives set out in the articles of association. Furthermore, it prohibits the use of majority decisions to infringe on the members' freedom of thought and belief. It also deems the involvement of professional guilds in politics as illegal. This perspective is highly noteworthy for our country. The article argues that the regulations applicable to private law associations cannot be fully applied. In other words, limitations must be imposed on association autonomy. Although professional guilds are private law associations, their organizational structure and operation must adhere to democratic principles and, in certain situations, follow the principles of public law. In other words, they are constructed within the framework of the intertwined application of public law and private law. Additionally, the articles of association and general meeting resolutions of professional guilds should consider restrictions within the scope of legal authorization and should not be arbitrarily stipulated. The obligation of members' cooperation adopts a separate theory, taking into account that it should not, through majority decisions, undermine the basic rights of members under the constitution.