법학전문대학원 진입장벽 완화 수단으로서의 특별전형제도: 그 운영현황 및 개선방안

최유경 ( Yu Kyong Choe ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2015 서울대학교 法學 Vol.56 No.4

이 연구는 법학전문대학원 특별전형제도의 운영현황 및 성과를 분석하고 제도상 문제와 한계를 노정(露呈)함으로서 중·장기적인 개선방안을 제시하는 데 목적이 있다. 2009년부터 시행된 법학전문대학원제도가 불가피한 고비용 교육구조를 취하게 됨으로써 총입학정원 가운데 일정한 비율을 신체적·경제적 취약계층 및 사회·문화적 취약계층에게 할당하는 이른바 특별전형제도가 정책적으로 도입되었다. 이는 법률가양성 제도의 진입장벽을 완화하고 법률가집단의 다양성을 확보하기 위한 제도로 궁극적으로 사법접근권(access to justice)에 대한 형평성과 신뢰도 제고를 추구하는 제도로 평가할 수 있다. 지난 7년간 특별전형 입학자는 총입학정원의 약 6.14%로, 제1회부터 제4회 변호사시험 합격자의 약 5.1%를 차지했다. 이들은 로펌과 개인변호사 사무실을 비롯해 사기업과 공공영역 등 다양한 직역으로 진출하고 있는 것으로 보이지만, 이 제도가 우리 사회에서 과소대표되고 있는 계층을 충분히 포섭하고 있는지에 대한 평가를 내리기는 아직 이르다. 한편, 특별전형제도는 각 법학전문대학원 별로 복잡하고 상이한 세부유형과 기준을 가지고 운영되고 있어 보다 체계적이고 통일적인 기준 마련이 요구된다. 무엇보다 법학전문대학원들이 특별전형 지원자들이 제출하는 각종 증빙서류에 대한 진위확인 권한이 없다는 점에서 여전히 객관성과 공정성을 확보할 수 있는 보완책을 마련할 필요성이 크다. 특별전형제도가 고비용 교육구조에 대한 문제의식을 바탕으로 설계된 점을 고려한다면, 신체적 취약계층의 경우를 제외하고는 ‘경제적 취약성’을 기준으로 통일적인 유형과 기준을 마련하여야 할 것이다. 이때 ‘소득’ 지표 외에 지역, 부(富), 가족의 교육력(敎育歷), 중·고등교육정보 등 보다 다양한 사회경제적 지표를 개발하여 법학전문대학원들의 자율적인 학생선발권을 보장하는 일도 중요한 과제로 남아 있다. 무엇보다 특별전형제도 운영과정상 투명성과 공정성을 담보할 수 있는 전담 기구를 설치하여 특별전형 지원자에 대한 일차적인 관리·심사가 엄격하게 이루어지고 진위 조사 권한을 확보할 수 있는 방안을 모색할 때가 아닌가 한다. 나아가 현행 특별전형제도가 법학전문대학원 제도의 진입장벽을 낮추고, 다양한 사회·경제적 계층의 이익을 대변하는 법률가 양성의 기틀을 마련하기에 충분한 수준인지 여부는 중·장기적인 사회적 합의를 통해 도출해야 할 문제다. 이 글은 특별전형제도의 법적 근거와 세부 유형(II.), 특별전형제도의 운영현황 및 성과(III.), 그리고 정책적 함의와 개선방안(IV.)의 순서로 구성되어 있다. The purpose of the study is to examine the special admission system of law school which assigns specific quota for socially and economically vulnerable students to lower the entrance barrier of law school. The US-style postgraduate law school system has been launched in Korea through legal reform in 2009. Compared to the precedent judicial examination, however, the postgraduate law school system has been often criticized because of its expensive tuition. As a result, special admission was introduced as one of the affirmative actions for physically, economically, socially, and culturally vulnerable groups. The special admission not only aims to lower the entrance barrier of law school but also guarantee diversity of legal professionals in the Korean society so that the post-reform legal professional training system can enhance access to social justice and promote public trust to the legal system. Despite the annual cap of the law school nationwide, each law school has been allocating 5 to 10 percent for the special admission quota since 2009. According to the statistics, approximately 6.14 percent of the total number of law school students has entered the law school through special admission in last 7 years. The beneficiaries of special admission reached about 5.1 percent of the bar passers from 2011 to 2014. The occupational distribution extends to a wide variety including law firms, private lawyer’s office, private sector and public legal institution, etc. Nevertheless, the author concludes that it is too early to evaluate whether the current special admission system is sufficient to lower the entrance barrier of law school for the underrepresented groups in our society. Meanwhile, the study encompasses specific standards and criteria of the special admission which have been managed by the law schools. While the relating laws and regulations delegate all the authority to finalize distinctive standards to the each law school, the special admission has been operated in a different and complicated manner by distinctive law schools. Moreover, law schools are not entitled to inspect or monitor the authenticity of the evidential documents that the applicants are required to submit for proving their economical status. The author emphasizes that it is inevitable to make more concrete standard based on financial need. More sophisticated factors such wealth and educational history of family and the applicants should be considered not to mention ‘income’. The study also stresses that both the extent and criteria of the special admission should be narrowed down to prevent reverse discrimination. Also, the author suggests to establish an institution which is authorized to investigate or inspect the authenticity of all the documents with the purpose of guaranteeing the transparency and the fairness of the special admission process nationwide. The article consists of legal grounds of the special admission and the specific standards (Chapter II.), empirical approaches of the current condition and outcomes (Chapter III.), and the ramifications and suggestions (Chapter IV.).

법학전문대학원 제도 도입을 통해 본 법률가직역의 젠더 계층화(Gender Stratification)에 관한 연구

최유경 ( Yu Kyong Choe ) 법과사회이론학회 2015 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.50

Analyzing the result of a comprehensive survey legal professions in Korea which was conducted in 2014, the study mainly focuses on the rapid increase in quantity of the female legal professionals in Korea since 2000. The number of female lawyers including judges, public prosecutors, and practicing attorneys- has been sharply increasing in 2000s. The number of female legal professionals still remains growing after the adoption of US-style postgraduate legal education system in 2009. Not only among the law school students but also among the bar passers, law clerks, prosecutors, and practicing attorneys in various fields of law, female population has been impressively increasing. Based on the extensive empirical data, the study compares female respondents to male respondents through investigating a wide variety of evaluation indexes such as employment status, types of the legal profession, performance businesses, income, job satisfaction and job search intention, etc. Conclusively, no statistical difference was found between female and male legal professionals in case of the young lawyers group who are mainly (1) the graduates of the post-reform law school from 2011 to 2013 and (2) the graduates of the Judicial Research and Training Institute (JRTI) who entered the JRTI during the same years. On the other hand, in terms of the compatibility of the job and family, female lawyers seem to show meaningful differences in considering the types of the legal profession, performance business, location, working hours, or time for recreations. Marriage and pregnancy directly affect to female legal professionals in deciding maternity leave or parental leave while they do not seem to have significant impacts on the male respondents. Moreover, a lot more female legal professionals answered to have experienced sexual harrassment at work. Through intense analyzation the surveys, the study concludes that some of the key factors can cause gender stratification of the legal profession in Korea like the extensive volume of previous studies have already suggests in the US. Not only quantitative but also qualitative surveys and researches, targeting the career-groups, will further provide more sophisticated results on gender stratification of the legal profession as well.

법조일원주의 법관임용방식으로서의 법관선거제도 -미국 주(州)법관선거제도의 현황과 문제점을 중심으로-

최유경 ( Yu Kyong Choe ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2014 홍익법학 Vol.15 No.1

This article aims to consider the judicial election system of the United States as one remedy for the Korean post-reform-that is called a ‘unitary system of lawyers’--judge selection methods. Before to discuss whether to adopt the unique US-style judicial election system, the author stresses to importance to know about the originality and the history of the system. Considering that previous studies have not focused on the history, characteristics, or advantages and disadvantages of the judicial election system itself, the article first provides intensive historical overview, tracing up to the first adoption of the judicial election in Mississippi in 1832. However, it is only after 1846 when New York amended its constitution to elect the judges on behalf of previous appointment system. It then took only 8 years until other twenty states followed N.Y. to establish the judicial election system for constituting their judiciary. The article also encompasses extensive examination of the current judicial election of the US. In the mean time, the US judicial election system tends to have been changed from a ① ’partisan judicial election’ to a ② ‘nonpartisan judicial election’ type in order to overcome mortal problems that had been revealed. Since 1940, many states have shifted to a ③ ‘merit-selection’(or ‘Missouri plan’) system which is a kind of conciliatory way to appoint a judge for the bench plus retention election after her term. The study suggests the most up-to-date data of the states’ judicial election system including the ④ ‘gubernatorial appointment system’ and the ⑤ ‘legislative election’ / ‘legislative appointment’ not to mention the above three types of judicial election system respectively. Moreover, the author analyzes serious problems that the US judicial election system have revealed throughout the long lasting experiences: (1) corelation between the campaign money contributors and the judicial independence; (2) the problems of obtaining endorsement from political parties; (3)public apathy reperensted by the rate of ‘roll-off’; (4) the susceptibility of the judiciary responding to the public supports or pressures and the influence of the special interest groups; and (5) the management and the control over the judicial election process. The study provides remarkably extensive examples grounded by the cases and examples from a wide variety of states. Finally, the author assumes to introduce the merit-selection type judicial election system in Korea as a remedy based on the unitary system of lawyers which substantial postulations have to be qualified and prepared. The study concludes that it is not a clear-cut controversy whether to adopt a judicial election system or to maintain the existing appointment system in terms of balancing the professionalism, judicial independence, accountability, responsibility, and responsiveness of the judiciary.

헌법상 기본권 보장체계의 개방성에 관한 小考

최유경(Yu kyong Choe),김주영(Ju Young Kim) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2015 世界憲法硏究 Vol.21 No.3

정보기술과 생명과학기술을 비롯한 첨단과학기술의 발전이 소위 '세계화'와 '정보화'로 대표되는 현대사회의 변화를 주도하는 가운데 특히 20세기 중후반의 신흥국가들 사이에서는 '민주화'로 대표되는 정치ㆍ사회적 변화가 정치ㆍ경제ㆍ사회ㆍ문화의 전 분야에 걸친 권리의식의 신장을 촉진함에 따라, 우리나라에서도 인권담론의 확장과 함께 전통적인 헌법상의 '권리장전' 혹은 '기본권목록'의 확대가 요구되고 있으며, 이러한 추세는 앞으로 더욱 가속화할 것으로 예상된다. 이러한 권리들의 헌법적 보장을 위한 최선의 방법은 헌법 개정을 통해 새로운 권리들을 권리장전에 포함시키는 것임은 분명하나, 헌법 개정이 이루어지기 전이라도 "개인이 가지는 불가침의 기본적 인권"에 대한 적절한 헌법적 보장을 모색하는 것은 현행 헌법이 국가에 명시적으로 부여한책무라 할 수 있겠기에 본 연구는 현행 헌법체계 하에서의 헌법에 열거되지 아니한 권리의 헌법적 보장기제를 헌법상 기본권 보장체계의 개방성의 관점에서 특히 헌법 제37조 제1항을 중심으로 검토하였다. 검토 결과 건국헌법부터 존재해 온 헌법 제37조 제1항은 기본권 보장체계의 개방성을 명시적으로 선언하고 있지만 새로운 권리의 보장을 위한 적극적인 요건을 제시하고 있지는 않기 때문에 새로운 권리의 헌법적 보장은 기존 헌법의 해석론만으로는 충분한 대응이 어려움을 확인할 수 있었고, 이를 극복하기 위한 방안 가운데 하나로 적극적인 권리담론의 입론의 필요성을 강조하였다. As the development of the information technology and high-tech including life sciences takes the lead of the modern society's transformation, political and social changes which are represented by 'democratization' have been causing extension of rights in political, social, economical and cultural fields in the emerging countries since the mid-21st Century. Accordingly, it is required to expand the traditional 'Bill of Rights' or the 'list of fundamental rights(Grundrechtskatalog)' along with the expansion of the human rights discourse. And this trend is expected to accelerate more in the future. Obviously, one of the best ways to guarantee the new rights would be revising Constitution and enumerating such rights in Constitution. Considering the Constitution empowers constitutional responsibilities to seek "inviolable fundamental human rights", however, the study argues that we should focus more on interpreting the Constitution Article 37 Section 1 in terms of the openness of the constitutional rights guaranteeing system before discussing the Constitutional revision. The study conclusively confirms that despite the Constitution Article 37 Section 1 has been provided since the 1948 Constitution, explicitly declaring the openness of the constitutional rights guaranteeing system, it lacks of articulating affirmative requirements for guaranteeing the new rights. Therefore, constitutional guarantee of the new rights seems insufficient to correspond to the social changes merely with the existing theories. In order to overcome the limitation, the study emphasizes the necessity of establishing a distinctive 'right discourse' itself.

유럽연합의 ESG 법제화 현황 및 쟁점: NFRD와 SFDR 도입과 EU 회원국의 국내법적 수용을 중심으로

최유경 ( Choe Yu-Kyong ),조아영 ( Cho Ah-Young ) 경상대학교 법학연구소 2022 法學硏究 Vol.30 No.1

이 글은 2025년부터 국내에서도 ESG 공시 의무화가 전면 도입되는 상황을 고려하여 입법적 시사점을 도출하기 위한 일차적 정보의 제공을 목적으로 EU 지침과 규정의 주요 내용과 체계를 소개하고자 EU 회원국들의 국내법적 수용 현황을 상세히 분석하고, 분류하고 있다. ESG란, 투자 및 주요 경영전략으로 특히 투자자의 관점에서 재무적 요소 이외에도 고려하여야 할 요소로서의 환경, 사회, 지배구조를 의미하며, 2020년 COVID-19 확산을 계기로 기업의 지속가능한 존속과 비재무 성과인 ESG에 대한 투자 원칙 등이 발전된 형태로 전 세계적으로 ESG 담론이 급격히 확산되고 있다. 이는 기업의 성과와 전략의 적절성 판단 기준을 비재무성과 부문에도 두겠다는 의지로 읽히는 가운데, 유럽연합(EU)은 이미 2014년 10월 22일, “특정 대형기업 및 그룹에의 비재무정보 및 다양성 정보 공개에 관한 지침(2013/34/EU)을 개정하는 유럽의회 및 유럽이사회의 2014년 10월 22일 지침(2014/95/EU)” (Non-Financial Reporting Directive, ‘NFRD’)을 발표했다. EU 회원국들은 기업의 비재무정보의 취합과 공시에 관한 일관성을 확보하도록 하고 환경, 사회, 고용, 인권, 반부패 및 뇌물방지, 거버넌스 등의 비재무정보를 공시하도록 하고 있으며, 대표적으로 프랑스, 독일, 영국, 이탈리아 등의 국가에서는 EU 지침과 유사한 국내법적 기준을 마련하고 있다. 반면 아일랜드, 스페인, 스웨덴, 덴마크 등은 EU에서 요구하는 수준 이상으로 국내법 체계를 마련하는 한편, ESG 정보 공시 의무 불이행 시 처벌 규정을 두는 경우의 입법례를 보이기도 한다. 반면 EU는 2021년부터 이른바 금융기관과 금융상품에 대해서도 지속가능성 정보 공시를 의무화하는 이른바 “금융서비스 부문의 지속가능성 관련 공시에 관한 유럽의회 및 유럽이사회의 2019년 11월 27일 규정(Sustainable Financial Disclosure Regulation, ‘SFDR’)”을 제정하였으며, 금융시장 참여자들로 하여금 지속적인 공시를 하도록 요구함으로써 정보 비대칭성을 최소화할 것을 주문하고, SDGs에 맞추어 저탄소의 보다 지속 가능한 자원 효율적인 순환 경제로 이행하여 유럽연합 경제의 장기적 경쟁력을 확보를 모색하고 있다. This article introduces the main content and system of the EU Directives and Regulations for the purpose of providing primary information to draw legislative implications in consideration of the situation in which the mandatory ESG disclosure will be introduced in Korea from 2025. The status of domestic legal acceptance is analyzed and classified in detail. ESG refers to the environment, society, and governance as factors that should be considered in addition to financial ones, especially from the point of view of investors as investment and major business strategies. ESG discourse is rapidly spreading around the world as the principles of investment in ESG have been developed. While this is considered to set standards for determining the adequacy of corporate performance and strategy in the non-financial performance sector, the European Union (EU) has taken an initiating role by adopting the Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the European Council amending the Directive (2013/34/EU) - also called the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) on Oct 22, 2014. It relates to disclosure of non-financial and diversity information to certain large companies and groups. Accordingly, the EU member states ensure consistency in the collection and disclosure of non-financial information of companies, and require non-financial information such as environment, society, employment, human rights, anti-corruption and anti-bribery, and governance to be disclosed. Most of the EU countries including France, Germany, UK and Italy are accepting domestic laws at a level similar to EU standards. On the other hand, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and Denmark have established a domestic legal system that exceeds the level required by the EU, while also showing examples of legislation that imposes penalties for non-fulfillment of ESG information disclosure obligations. On the other hand, in the EU, the so-called “Sustainable Financial Disclosure of the European Parliament and the European Council of November 27, 2019, Regulation, 'SFDR')”, ordered to minimize information asymmetry by requiring financial market participants to make continuous disclosures, and moved to a low-carbon, more sustainable, resource-efficient circular economy in line with the SDGs in the European Union It seems to be seeking to secure the long-term competitiveness of the economy.