법조인 선발제도별 비용분석과 진입유인 분석 (Cost Analysis of the Different Selection Processes of Judicial Officers and Entrance Motivation Analysis)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국회계학회
· 수록지 정보 : 회계저널 / 25권 / 4호 / 67 ~ 99페이지
· 저자명 : 천도정, 황인태

초록

본 연구의 목적은 기존 사법시험이 갖는 소위 ‘고시낭인’이 되어 역기능으로서 사회가 부담하고 있는 사회적비용을 감소시키고 법조인의 다양성과 전문적 지식을 법에 도입하기 위한 제도로서 법학전문대학원(law school; 로스쿨: 이하 ‘법전원’)이 갖는 장점에도 불구하고 법전원의 고비용구조가 우리 국민 모두가 진입할 수 있는 법조영역에 대한 진입장벽이 되어 특정 소득계층이 진입하지 못하는 문제가 과연 존재할 수 있는지의 여부를 분석하고자 하는데 있다.
법전원이 출범했음에도 불구하고 지금까지 구체적인 분석이 이루어지지 않고 막연한 추측과 여론에 의하여 고비용구조이기 때문에 법조인이 되는데 진입장벽이 되고, 오히려 기존의 사법시험을 존치하여 문제를 해결하여야 한다는 주장이 많이 제기되고 있는 실정이다. 현재 국회에는 김용남 의원 등이 발의한 사시 존치 관련 법안 4건이 계류되어있다. 여기에 오신환 의원이 대표발의한 사시 존치 법안이 지난 6월 제출되어 법안소위 회부를 기다리고 있는 상태다. 그러나 기존의 사법시험과 비교하여 얼마나 많은 비용차이가 발생하는지 구체적인 분석은 이루어진 적이 없다.
본 분석의 목적은 기존 사법시험제도와 법전원체제에 대한 가치판단의 문제에 대한 접근은 제외하고, 순수한 비용분석에 의하여 국민소득계층에서 법조계에 진입하지 못하는 소득계층이 존재하는지 여부를 비교분석하는데 있으며, 만일 존재한다면 어떠한 계층이 진입할 가능성이 적은지를 분석하였다.
이러한 분석은 국민의 교육과 직업기회에 대한 형평성과 법조분야의 발전에 매우 중요한 의미를 갖는다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 본 비용분석은 법전원 출신의 변호사시험과 기존 사법시험과의 분석에서 측정 불가능한 요인은 배제하고, 측정 가능한 범위 내에서 비용의 총액과 차액분석을 통하여 비교하고, 법조인이 되기 위한 기회비용을 이용하여 비용의 차이를 비교 분석하여 소득계층의 진입가능여부의 판단기준을 제시한다는 것은 원가(비용)분석의 사례로서 큰 의미가 있다고 생각한다.

영어초록

The goal of this cost analysis is to explore and analyze, despite the advantages the new 'law school' system, which reduces the social costs of the ‘entrance exam vagabond’ problem by solving this social issue the previous judicial bar entrance exam had, and allows the for the diversification of the pool of applicants and encourages professional knowledge in the law industry, if in fact there is a possibility that the cost structure of law school serving as an entrance barrier for certain socio-economic groups to apply to be a Judicial Officer is a problem that exists.
Even though the law school system was established, there has not yet been a detailed analysis, and the reality is that through vague guesswork and media spin, the system is blamed as being of high cost and therefore the cause for being a high barrier of entry to certain socioeconomic classes to become a Judicial Officer, and that it also retains the problems of the previous judicial bar examination, so there are many opinions that these problems of the new law school system need to be solved. However, there has yet to have been a detailed cost comparison analysis to explore how much the cost difference is with the old judicial bar examination system.
The goal of this analysis is in the case where the previous judicial bar examination has been abolished and the law school system goes into full effect, excluding the qualitative comparison of which selection process is more practical in turning out Judicial Officers, to evaluate from a strictly cost analysis point of view whether the law school system serves as a barrier of entry to any socioeconomic group. And if in fact this barrier exists, to analyze which socioeconomic group has the least chance of being able to enter.
Such analysis can be seen as having significant meaning in supporting the fairness of Korea’s education system and job opportunity system and also the advancement of the Judicial Officer selection and law industry. Therefore, this study excludes any elements in the current law school entrance exam system and the previous judicial bar examination system that cannot be accurately quantified, and compares the two systems within the bounds of quantifiable ranges, such as the analysis of the total and differential costs, and also the opportunity cost of becoming a Judicial Officer. All these factors are used for comparative analysis, and to present an official set of criterion that can be used to predict the chance of a certain socioeconomic group being successfully selected as a Judicial Officer has significant meaning as a case study of cost analysis.
If the law school system continues, a phenomenon in which the entry of individuals into legal circles is determined according to their economic income quantiles will set in. Therefore, various reviews on the lawyers training system should be performed. In relation to the costs of training lawyers, critics about the national judicial examination point out the seriousness of the problem of social opportunity costs due to numerous “unemployed individuals produced after failing in the examination” because the acceptance ratio remains at 3%. The costs borne by examinees who prepare for the existing national judicial examination are explicit costs that are borne by the examinees themselves. As they are willing to pay the costs, these costs can be viewed as avoidable costs. However, the costs borne by examinees for law schools are imputed costs under a system, and therefore, are more of unavoidable costs. Operating costs borne by universities to operate law schools, and scholarships and other costs borne by universities to meet the conditions required to operate law schools are indirect costs, and thus, these may be categorized as indirect opportunity costs borne by society. In addition, we should be aware that if the bar examination following the law school system continues to be operated for a long time, opportunity costs incurred by declines in the acceptance ratio should be borne.
This study conducted an analysis that is limited to the analysis of costs that will actually be incurred or are projected to be incurred while excluding overall axiological judgements on the lawyers training system or discussions on the appropriateness of the system. Therefore, it should be noted that there can be a number of variations according to circumstantial changes. However, there was a limitation in the cost analysis. For example, the operating costs of law schools borne by universities and implicit social indirect costs were excluded from the analysis because it was actually impossible to obtain data on these costs or measure them.

참고자료

· 없음