법학전문대학원의 구조조정 등에 관한 소고— 경쟁에 의한 정원의 자율조정, 야간로스쿨 설립과 변호사시험의 자격시험으로의 운용을 위한 제언 — (A Study on Restructuring of Law Schools and Etc.— Proposal for Self-Correcting of Entrance Quota by Competition, Establishment of Night Law School and Eligibility Test of the Bar Exam. —)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 연세대학교 법학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 법학연구 / 29권 / 2호 / 111 ~ 148페이지
· 저자명 : 이은기

초록

2009년 법학전문대학원이 출범한지도 어느덧 10년이 지났다. 우리보다 5년 먼저 로스쿨제도를 도입한 일본에서는 74개 로스쿨 중 37개교가 이미 폐교하였고 그 숫자는 점점 늘고 있다. 우리 로스쿨제도는 출범 당시는 물론 운영과정에서 법치주의에 어긋난 교육행정이 여러 면에서 노정되었다.
법전원법은 법전원의 설치인가 및 폐지･변경인가의 절차에 대해서만 위임했음에도 ‘법학전문대학원의 설치인가 등에 있어서 지방대학의 발전과 지역균형을 고려하여야 한다’고 규정한 시행령 제5조는 모법에서 수권(위임)하지 않은 사항을 규정하고 있는바, 위임의 범위를 일탈한 내용을 규정한 것으로서 위법 무효이다. 우리 대법원 판례는 일관하여 모법에 없는 사항을 시행령에서 규정하거나 포괄적 위임은 위법 무효라고 판시해 오고 있다. 시행령 제5조에 기하여 2008년 교육부는 로스쿨 인가시 지방대 에 지역경제상황과 변호사수요를 고려하지 않고 지방거점대인 부산대, 경북대, 전남대, 충남대 등에 입학정원을 과다 배정하였다.
지역균형발전을 위하여 배정한 취지에 부합하기 위해서는 지방대 로스쿨 졸업생들에게는 최소한의 한시적인 개업지 제한(예컨대 졸업한 로스쿨 소재 광역지자체내 지역에서 2-3년 또는 5년 근무)이라도 해야 하는바, 그러한 제한조차 두지 않고 있다. 그 결과 지방대 로스쿨을 졸업하고 변호사시험에 합격한 대다수 졸업생들이 서울 등 수도권으로 올라와 취업하거나 개업하도록 방치하였다. 그 결과 입학정원의 50%인 1,000명을 지방대에 할당한 지역균형발전 이념을 몰각시키고 있다.
현재 로스쿨의 재정적 취약성을 감안하여 계속 연장하여 2020년까지 시행 예정인 결원보충제는 경쟁원리를 왜곡시키고 당해 로스쿨이 감수해야 할 부분을 국가가 나서서 제도적으로 보완해 줌으로서 로스쿨 상호간 경쟁이 없는 무풍지대로 만드는 것으로서 폐지되어야 한다. 법전원법 제25조에서 허용된 편입학제도가 실제로는 금지되고 있다. 그 결과 원래 입학한 로스쿨에서 1년을 수학하고 다시 입학시험을 쳐서 타 로스쿨에 1학년으로 입학하는 비경제적인 현상이 계속되고 있다. 지방대 법학전문대학원들이 카르텔을 형성, 편입학을 반대하여 이를 시행하지 못함으로써 법치주의가 실종된 비법률적 행태이다. 법치행정을 해야 하는 주무부서인 교육부는 방관하고 있으나, 강력한 행정지도로 법치주의를 회복해야 한다.
법전원법 제26조는 ‘학생구성의 다양성’이라는 제하에 입학정원 중 비법학사1/3이상, 타교 학부출신 1/3이상을 선발하도록 강제함으로써 법전원의 학생구성을 인위적으로 통제하고 있다(Command & Control). 이러한 제도는 입시에서의 대학 자율성과 자유경쟁원리에 반하므로 법을 개정하여 폐지하거나 그 비율을 축소해야 한다.
그 밖에 사법시험의 폐지로 인한 부작용을 줄이기 위해 야간로스쿨을 설립하고 변시낭인을 줄이기 위해 변호사시험을 자격시험으로 운용하는 등 10년 경험에서 노정된 불합리한 제도들을 시급히 손질해야 한다. 이러한 문제는 법관과 검사의 선발 등 인사행정과도 밀접하게 관련되는 ‘사법정책 및 법무행정’의 일환이다.
이 글에서는 법학전문대학원의 지속적 발전을 위해 자유경쟁에 의한 자율적 구조조정 등 여러 가지 제도적 개선책을 제시해 보았다. 우리나라에서도 일본의 전철을 밟지 않으려면 이러한 문제에 대해 교육부, 법무부, 사법정책연구원, 대한변협, 법전원협의회, 법학교수회 등 유관기관들이 협력하여 진지한 사회적 논의를 해야 한다.

영어초록

It has been ten years since Law Schools were launched in 2009 modeled after American Law School. In Japan, which introduced the law school system five years before Korea, 37 out of 74 Law Schools have closed down and this number is still increasing.
The Korean Law School System was exposed to various educational administrative systems that fell against rule of law not only at its introduction, but also during the course of its operation. In the Act on the Establishment and Management of Professional Law Schools (hereinafter called Law School Act), the enforcement ordinance prescribed considerations for the development of local universities and regional balance despite it not being consigned.
Despite the fact that the Law School Act delegates only the procedures of authorization for establishment, closure and modification of law schools, Article 5 of the Enforcement Ordinance prescribes that ’in authorization of establishment, etc. of Law Schools, development of local universities and regional balance must be considered’. This prescribes a matter not delegated from the parent law and it prescribes matters in deviation of the scope of delegation, and is therefore illegal and invalid. Previous case rulings of the Korean Supreme Court has precedence that prescribing matters in the enforcement ordinance that is not in the parent law is invalid.
Pursuant to Article 5 of the enforcement ordinance, the Ministry of Education assigned excessive entrance quotas for major regional universities such as Pusan National University, Kyungpook National University, Chonnam National University and Chungnam National University without considering the local economic situation for law schools of local universities while accrediting Law Schools. This is not delegated by the parent law and therefore, it is based on the invalid Article 5 and 6 of the enforcement ordinance and thus poses a problem.
In order to meet the goal of assignment for regionally balanced development in the above ordinance, it was necessary to at least temporarily limit place of practices (i.e., be required to work within the area of jurisdiction of the law school they graduated from) for graduates of local university law schools, but it did not place such limitations. In result, most graduates who graduated from law schools in other regions and passed the bar exam moved to the Seoul region to find employment or open their law firm. This resulted in disregarding the ideology of regionally balanced development that assigned 1,000 persons, 50% of the Law School entrance quota, to Law Schools of local universities.
The vacancy-filling system resulting from drop-outs, etc. that is being temporarily executed and extended to 2020 considering the financial vulnerability of Law Schools not only distorts the principle of free competition, but basically serves as systematically supporting failed competition of law schools. When a failure that should be shouldered by the law school is systematically supplemented by the state, it creates a free-zone without competition among law schools, which poses as a problem and should be abolished.
Law School Act Article 25 Paragraph 1 states, “A professional law school student may transfer to another professional law school, as prescribed by school regulations” and the allowed transfer system is in reality prohibited. In result, students who were admitted to a Law School study for a year at that school and then takes another law school aptitude examination and entrance test to become admitted at another law school as a new student, thus making this uneconomic reality continue to go on. This acts as a barrier to fair and free competition and it is in an unlawful form where constitutionalism is missing in law schools, whose goal is to foster practitioners of law. The Ministry of Education, which is the ministry in charge of educational administration and that should engage in constitutional administration, is also just looking on without doing anything.
Law School Act Article 26 states ‘Diversity of Student Bodies’. Therefore, it artificially commands and controls student bodies of the Law School Act by forcing the selection of 1/3 or more undergraduates from majors other than law and 1/3 or more from undergraduate schools of other universities from its admissions quota. This system is in opposition to the autonomy and free competition principles for entry into graduate schools, and therefore, the law should be revised promptly and be abolished.
To further reduce side effects resulting from the abolition of the judicial examination, nighttime law schools were established and law aptitude examinations, credit transfer systems of electives, operation of eligibility tests of bar exams, subject passing systems, and other systems that displayed side effects over the past 10 years should also be addressed promptly.
This problem is ‘part of judicial policy and prosecutor administration’ closely related to the personnel administration in selecting judges and prosecutors such as how to select persons with what kind of education, how to educate them after selection and where to assign them in courts and prosecutor’s office etc. Systematic reform measures were suggested such as autonomous restructuring according to free competition for the sustainability of professional law schools. In order for Korea not to follow in the footsteps of Japan, the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Policy Research Institute, Korean Bar Association, and the Korean Association of Law Schools should cooperate in reforms for sustainable law school structures and engage in sincere social discussions.

참고자료

· 없음