한국 로스쿨제도 개선 및 예비시험제도 도입에 관한 연구 (A Study on the Reform of Law School System and the Introduction of the Preliminary Exam. for the Bar-Exam.)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 단국대학교 법학연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 법학논총 / 38권 / 4호 / 415 ~ 474페이지
· 저자명 : 곽창신

초록

韓國에서 법과대학. 사법시험 및 사법연수원 제도를 중심으로 한 과거의 법조인양성 제도의 문제점을 근본적으로 개혁하기 위하여, 日本과 美國에서 운영하고 있는 法學專門大學院制度(이하 ‘로스쿨제도’)를 도입한지 5년이 되었다. 그동안 2009년 3월부터 매년 25개 로스쿨에서 입학정원 2,000명씩 입학시켜서, 2012년부터 辯護士試驗에서 연간 1,500여명씩 3회의 합격자를 배출하였다. 현재는 과거의 법조인양성제도의 문제점을 근본적으로 개혁하고자 도입한 로스쿨제도를 5년간 운영해 본 결과 나타난 문제점을 중심으로 개선방안을 논의하고 있고, 나타난 일부 문제점에 대해서는 개선을 실시하고 있다.
요즈음은 한국⋅일본⋅미국 간에 일어나고 있는 상황이 언론보도 및 학술교류 등을 통하여 즉시 알려지고 있기 때문에, 일본과 미국 로스쿨의 실상과 문제점이 관계자들 뿐만 아니라 학생이나 학부모들에게도 알려지면서, 상세히 비교해 보면 한국⋅일본⋅미국 3개국의 로스쿨제도 간에 상당한 차이점이 존재함에도 불구하고, 많은 국민들이 한국 로스쿨제도에 대해서 우려와 비판의 시각이 점점 커져가고 있다.
현재 시점에서 한국 로스쿨제도의 문제점 및 개선대책을 논의할 때에는, 2004년에 한국보다 5년 먼저 法科大學院制度(이하 ‘로스쿨제도’)를 도입하였으나, 운영상 나타난 문제가 심각하게 되어 2012년부터 범정부 차원에서 본격적으로 개혁작업을 진행하고 있는 일본의 제도개혁을 참고하여 한국 로스쿨의 개선대책을 연구⋅제시해 보는 것이 좋은 방법의 하나이다. 아울러 2011년부터 구조적인 문제점이 폭로되고 있는 미국 로스쿨의 문제점을 탐구해 보고 한국에 주는 시사점을 한국 로스쿨 개선에 참고할 필요가 있다고 본다. 그리고 현재 법학계 및 법조계의 중요한 현안의 하나인 辯護士豫備試驗制度(이하 ‘예비시험제도’) 도입 및 司法試驗 존치 논의도 근본적으로는 새로운 법조인 양성제도인 로스쿨제도 및 변호사시험제도에서 나타난 문제점에서 출발하고 있다는 점을 고려하여, 예비시험제도 도입 및 사법시험 존치 주장을 논의 할 때는 현행 법조인 양성제도의 문제점 및 대책의 큰 틀속에서 논의해야 할 필요가 있다.
본 연구에서는 현행 법조인 양성제도의 문제점 및 대책을 로스쿨제도를중심으로 장기와 단기로 구분하여 탐구해 보고, 현행 司法試驗制度(이하 ‘사시’)가 2017년을 마지막으로 폐지 예정임에 따라 2013년부터 국회, 법조계, 법학계 및 언론 등에서 본격적인 논의가 시작된 예비시험제도의 도입 및 사법시험제도 계속 존치 주장을 법조인 양성제도 개혁이라는 맥락 속에서 살펴본다. 마지막으로 국회 박영선의원이 대표로 발의한 예비시험제도의 모델인 미국 캘리포니아(Califonia)주에서 미인가 로스쿨 재학생을 대상으로 실시하고 있는 예비시험제도(일명 ‘Baby-bar’)와 일본에서 경제사정 등 여러 가지 형편상 로스쿨 진학이 어려운 사람들을 위하여 2011년부터 도입하여 실시중인 司法試驗 豫備試驗制度 (이하 ‘예비시험’)사례를 검토해 보고 한국에 적합한 법조인 선발제도를 제시하려고 한다.

영어초록

Korean Government decided to introduce the American-style ‘law school system’ to reform the long-debated problems such as the abnormal legal education in the undergraduate course, the excessive competition in the bar-examination and the training system of successful applicants for the bar-exam. Therefore, Korean government approved only small number of law schools by establishing the high criteria which were very difficult to pass. Twenty-five law schools with 2,000students in Korea started in March of 2009.
During 5-year-operation period, some problems of new law school system were found and some of them have been reformed so far. We can separate the problems of Korean law school into two categories. One group of problems is short-term problems which are necessary for the soft landing of new law school system. The other group of problems is fundamental problems including the assertion of abolition of law school system itself.
When we try to find the solution to the problems of Korean law school system,we had better study the problems and solutions to the law school system of the U.S.A. and Japan. According to the book, 「Failing Law Schools」written by Professor Brian Z. Tamanaha of University of Washington(Saint Louis), many deep-rooted wrong-doings of American law school system have been revealed from 2011. For example, recently most of American top-ranking law schools manipulated the LSAT scores and GPA of new students and the percentage of employment of graduates to get the good rankings in <US & World Report>.
Even though one-third of graduates could not find the decent lawyer jobs within 9 months after graduation, average debt of graduate of private law school reached 100,000 US dollars(70,000 US dollars in public law schools). This amount is too heavy burden for each graduate to repay after graduation. Recently the popularity of 200 American law schools has dropped drastically, so the number of applicantsof law school entrance examination also decreased to the level of the early seventies. However, with the help of ABA(American Bar Association), top-ranking private law schools lead high tuition trend for the benefits of professors. With the persistent pressure from mass-communication and criticism of conscientious professors, these deep-rooted wrong-doings of American law school system are likely to be corrected and reformed through the market-mechanism.
From the opening of 68 law schools with 5,590 students in 2004, Japanese law schools have been in difficult situation because of the fundamental problems such as imbalance between the number of students(5,828) in 74 law schools from 2005 and the number of successful applicants(approximately 2,000) in Japanesebar-examination. On top of that serious problems, Japan decided to introduce the preliminary-exam. system for the regular bar exam. to give opportunity to the economically and socially disadvantaged people from 2011. Unexpectedly, the popularity of preliminary-exam. for the regular bar-exam. exceeded the regularbar-exam. The number of applicants for the preliminary-exam. outnumbered that of the regular bar-exam. So Japanese law schools called for the abolition of preliminary-exam. system for fear of the collapse of law school system itself.
As above-mentioned, the problems of Japanese law schools have deteriorated since the opening year of 2004. Finally in August of 2012 the Central Governmentof Japan decided to establish ‘Committee of Ministers for the Reform of the Education and Training for the Legal Professionals’. And it was expected to finalize its duty in August of 2013. The Committee disclosed its final report in July 16th of 2013. According to the report, the Committee decided to maintainthe current law school system for the present. It decided to reform some easyproblems of law school system, however it delayed its final decision regarding the difficult tasks such as the optimum number of lawyers in Japan, the methods of reforming the low-performance law schools, preliminary-exam.
system for the regular bar-exam. and so forth. Japanese Government decided to create the new special Committee composed of 6 related-Ministers and the Advisory Group composed of experts under its jurisdiction. The newly established Committee will deal with the fundamental reform plan of the Japanese law school system including the fore-mentioned difficult tasks. The new Committee was established in September of 2013 and it will last for 2years.
From the lessons of the American and Japanese law school reform experiences, there can be two approaches for Korean law schools. In the short term, Korean law schools have to improve the urgent problems arising from the 5 years of operation. In the long term, the best policy for Korean law schools and Government is to wait and see the reform experiences of Japanese law school system.
Solutions to the short-term problems of Korean law schools are as follows, ① to reduce the excessive financial burden of students (expensive tuition), ② normalize the curriculum operation (over-heated competition for good GPA andfor the preparation of bar-exam.), ③ to stop the discussion of additional approval of law schools and reopening of college of law under each law school, ④ to solve the serious financial difficulty of each law school, ⑤ to adopt the 2-year-course for the students with LL.B. and so on.
And in stead of termination of Korean bar-exam. system in 2017, it is desirable that either the continuation of Korean bar-exam. system or the introduction of the preliminary-exam. system for regular bar-exam.
Lastly, it is necessary that Korean Central Government should establish the special organization composed of related ministers to discuss the urgent and fundamental problems of Korean law school system. And it is advisable that National Assembly should establish the Special Committee to discuss the Reform Plan of the Korean law school system including the preliminary-exam. system for the regular bar-exam.

참고자료

· 없음