예링의 법이론

신동일 고려대학교 법학연구원 2022 고려법학 Vol.- No.107

독일 법학자 루돌프 폰 예링(1818-1892)은 영미 사법권에서는 법학계의 마크 트웨인으로 소개되기도 한다. 그 이유는 그의 책들(일부)이 다양한 언어로 번역되었고, 실제로 그의 탁월한 문장과 풍요로운 사상이 법학자로만 평가하기 어려운 요소도 있었기 때문이다. 사실 예링은 프랑스혁명으로 인한 영향력과 유럽의 개혁사상이 뜨거웠던 분위기에서 부흥한 로마법의 개념논쟁만을 추구하던 법학계와 그와 달리 사회적 이해관계로 인한 혼란을 해결하기 위한 정치적 논쟁의 가운데에서 활동한 학자이다. 국내에서 널리 알려진 “권리를 위한 투쟁”은 재직하던 비엔나대학을 떠나 1871년 건국한 독일제국의 괴팅엔대학으로 옮기기 전 1872년 오스트리아 법률가협회에서 행한 연설을 확대한 책이다. 그는 이 책 이전에 이미 가장 유명한 로마법의 정신 전 4권을 출간한 바 있다. 역사법학파의 창설자 사비니의 정신적 후계자로, 그리고 실제로 판덱텐학자 푸흐타의 제자였던 예링은 초기 경력을 역사법학파 로마법 학자로서 시작하였다. 그러던 중 그는 19세기 중반부터 로마법을 강의하면서 고대 로마법은 전승될 존재론적 원칙이 아니라, 고대 로마인들의 정신 속에서 있던 법을 통한 이해관계 조정 도구로서의 사회 구성 원칙으로 파악하기 시작했다. 이 강의 결과들은 후에 “로마법의 정신” 전4권으로 출간되었다. 그의 “권리를 위한 투쟁”은 사실 “로마법의 정신”을 축약하여 강연으로 옮긴 것으로 볼 수 있으며, 후에 이를 더 정밀하게 요약한 “법의 목적” 전2권을 출간한다. 필자의 생각에 신학의 그늘에서 벗어나서 법학 자체의 이론을 정립한 것은 사비니로 보인다. 그런면에서 19세기 법전논쟁은 단순히 새로운 법전의 필요성에 대한 논란이라기 보다는 당시 독일 법학자들간 법에 대한 이해(방법론) 차이에서 비롯되었다고 볼 수 있다. 정치적 필요를 바로 반영하는 법이 아니라 사회와 문화적 배경, 그리고 그 관계에서 발전하는 법학을 찾는 일은 역사법학파의 업적으로 평가할 수 있다. 다만, 그들의 방법론의 소재가 된 로마법원리들에 대한 이해 차이는 예링이 이 학파를 떠나 새로운 자연과학적 법기술을 제안하는 계기가 되었다. 특히 경전적 신념을 계승하는 신학적 도그마틱이 아니라, 살아 있는 사람들의 이해관계를 법이성과 원리를 통해 체계적으로 설명하는 법 도그마틱은 예링의 로마법이론의 해부학적 분석과 재해석이 아니었다면 불가능했을지 모른다. A German law professor, Rudolf von Jhering was once regarded as the Mark Twain in sardonic humour. He has tried to modernize then German legal theories by analyzing and deep interpreting the republican Roman law. Jhering also pushed natural scientific methods into legal education to jettison its old ontological tediousness. He began professional career as a member of the historical school of jurisprudence proposed by Friedrich Carl von Savigny who was famous in pamphlet disputes between Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut over the new German civil code in 1814. The school formulated an organic theory of legal and social evolution. Backing up his teacher Georg Friedrich Puchta, he joined the scene until coming out a series of book in title of the Sprits of Roman Law(Geist des römischen Rechts I-IV). Far unlike other Roman law researchers who scrutinized themselves as uptight following (Begriffsjurisprudenz), Jhering anatomized the legal thoughts of Roman law piece by piece. And in the lecture for leaving Vienna university, he articulated that law was a tool for hunting down their interests, not for the conventional peace due. After the lecture, he printed the Struggle for Law(Der Kampf um’s Recht), a bestselling book all time. Through the book he was focused from the world and other academic fields. Later he simplified the SRL(Geist) into the Purpose in Law(Zweck im Recht), 2 volumes of book. He was extraordinarily success in publishing and admiring the audiences of the world. An orthodox pandectist became worldly recognizable. Many languages were able to enshrine his ideas to various legal cultures including Korea. The first Korean version of the SfL was translated by Professor Jai-Woo Shim in 1977, lately it is rehabilitated by his chair successor Jai-Wang Yoon. It paid well attention but in some extent the book only was not enough to understand the gist of his whole ideas. Many other SfLs in Korean came out. To chase somebody’s thought is to read through the prime sets. The SRL, the PiL, and the SfL will be the keys to open it out as Rudolf von Jhering pioneered. In this essay, I would like to summarize those books in a small dining table for readers. It is not a big work though, I hope it could legitimate that the first translator Professor Shim took us to see what Professor Jhering–then tiny Koreans knew about–has ever dedicated himself for the futuristic settings of modern jurisprudence.

‘국내 최초’ 법학연구기관, 고려대학교 법학연구원- 창립 65주년 역사와 전망 -

이주원 고려대학교 법학연구원 2025 고려법학 Vol.- No.119

In 2025, the Korea University Legal Research Institute reaches its sixty-fifth year since its establishment in 1960. This article aims to demonstrate the Institute’s founding status as Korea’s first legal research institution and to clarify its historical significance and contributions. For this purpose, this article consults the Handbook of the Korean University Legal Research Institute, published to commemorate the Institute’s thirtieth anniversary in 1990, and further supporting sources to illuminate the context of its founding and the state of legal research at the time. Founded on December 10, 1960, the Institute was the first university- affiliated legal research center in Korea and later encouraged the foundation and growth of similar research units at other universities. On May 25, 1962, by releasing The Law and Administration Review, the Institute became the first Korean institution to publish an academic legal journal under a legal research institute, thereby paving the way for others to follow. On May 24, 1965, the Insititute was designated by the government as the nation’s sole authorized insitution for handling publications related to North Korea and socialist legal systems, through which the Insitute became the only specialized research institute in this filed in Korea. With the growing openness and accessibility of research on North Korean and socialist legal systems, the Center for North Korean Law, having fulfilled its academic mission, was formally dissolved on March 10, 2021. Above all, it is necessary to reaffirm the historical weight of the Insitute’s status as the “first in the nation.” Equally significant, however, is the Institute’s role as ‘the origin of legal research in Korea’ and ‘the cradle of Korean jurisprudence.’ The Institue has continued to play a leading role in advancing legal scholarship nationawide, grounded in lasting pride in its status as the origin of legal research in Korea. Today, Korean society faces new challenges and urgent tasks. As Korea University celebrates its 120th anniversary, the Legal Research Institute must continue to fulfill its academic mission in keeping with the University’s motto of “Liberty, Justice, and Truth.” Building upon its long-standing commitment to liberty, its pursuit of concrete justice, and its dedication to truth, the Institute must remain steadfast in its calling of “advancing the nation through legal scholarship.”

현대 행정법학 방법론의 전개양상에 대한 소고 - 조종이론과의 접점을 중심으로 -

계인국 고려대학교 법학연구원 2017 고려법학 Vol.0 No.87

이른바 새로운 행정법 또는 행정법학의 개혁이라는 표제어는 행정법학 방법론의 개방성과 다양성의 요청에 부응하면서도 동시에 전래되어온 행정법 체계론과의 접점을 강구하려는 최근의 행정법학 방법론의 경향을 보여준다. 본고는 이러한 행정법학 방법론의 전개과정을 개요하는 것을 목적으로 하며 신행정법학 논의의 핵심적 배경 중 하나인 조종이론이 어떠한 구상을 통해 전통적인 행정법 체계를 비판하였으며 다시 법학적으로 수용되기 위해 어떤 방안을 마련하였는지를 중점적으로 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 먼저 행정법의 체계화 과정을 설명하고 이어서 조종이론의 기본 구상으로서 자기생산적 체계이론과 행위자중심적 조종이론을 소개하였다. 자기생산적 체계이론은 체계로서 행정법의 특징을 설명하고 (행정)법의 조종능력 상실을 진단하는 데에 기여하였으나 이론적, 경험적으로 공법학과 충돌하게 되므로 이를 극복하고 접점을 찾는 이론으로서 행위자중심적 조종이론이 받아들여지게 된다. 이를 토대로 신행정법학은 소위 ‘조종학문으로서 행정법학’이란 이론적 배경을 전제하여 행정법학 방법론의 개방성과 다양성을 추구하는 한편 종전 행정법 체계의 연속성을 지지한다. Die Stichwörter, “neue Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft” oder “Reform des Verwaltungsrechts”, zeigen eine Richtung, dass die heutigen Methodenlehre der Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft der Anforderung der Offenheit und Pluralität der Methoden wiederspiegeln wollen. Die vorliegende Arbeit will die Entwicklung der Methodenlehre in der modernen Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft herausarbeiten, insbesondere wie die Steuerungsansätze als ein wichtige Hintergrund dargestellt und rechtwissenschaftlich rezipiert werden. Zunächst erklärt hier den Prozess der Systematisierung des Verwaltungsrechts. Danach konzentriert diese Arbeit auf die Steuerungstheorie, vor allem autopoietische Systemtheorie und Akteurszentrierte Steuerung-stheorie. Die autopoietische Systemtheorie hat zwar damit gedient, das (Verwaltungs) Recht als ein System darzustellen, die Defizit der Steuerungsfähigkeit des (Verwaltungs) Rechts zu diagnostizieren, jedoch steht sich den tradierten Elementen Öffentliches Rechts gegenüber. Akteurszentrierte Steuerungstheorie versucht diese Entgegensetzung zu bewältigen und einen Treffpunkt zu finden. Das Projekt der “neuen Verwaltung- srechtswissenschaft” hat daher die Akteurszentrierte Steuerungstheorie vorausgesetzt und zielt auf den Methodenwandel zur Offenheit und Pluralität einerseits, anderseits aber beibehält die Kontinuität des traditionellen Verwaltung-srechtssystems.

박노형 교수 정년기념 대담

고려대학교 법학연구원 고려대학교 법학연구원 2024 고려법학 Vol.- No.112

학술대회발표문 : 고려대학교 법학연구원 2006년도 학술발표회 ; 현민 유진오 선생 탄신 100주년 기념 세미나 : 법학교육자로서 현민

김일수 ( Il Su Kim ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2007 고려법학 Vol.0 No.48

법학전문대학원 교육 10년의 평가와 향후 과제 - 형사소송법과 관련하여 -

박정난 고려대학교 법학연구원 2019 고려법학 Vol.0 No.95

법학전문대학원 제도는 학교교육과 법조인 양성의 단절을 어느 정도 해소하고, 다양한 전공자들이 법조계에 진출할 수 있도록 하는 등 긍정적 측면을 가지고 있지만, 주요책무인 법률실무가 양성 및 학문후속세대 양성에서 현재까지 드러난 문제점을 개선하여야 바람직한 법조인 양성기관으로 발전할 수 있다고 생각된다. 우선 변호사시험 출제경향을 분석하면, 선택형 시험은 99%의 판례만을 묻는 출제방식에서 벗어나 다양한 학설 등 법이론에 대한 정확한 이해도를 평가해야 한다. 출제되는 판례도 법조인으로서 실무를 수행하기 위하여 반드시 암기해야 할 핵심적인 판례를 선정하여 교수와 학생이 공유하고 그 범위에서 출제되어야 한다. 사례형 시험은 피의자 또는 피고인의 죄책 검토 및 증거능력 판단이 대다수 출제유형으로 기록형 시험과 그 유형이 중복되어 적절하지 않다. 서술형 시험의 취지를 살리고 법학에 대한 거시적 이해도를 측정할 수 있는 일반 논술형 시험도 출제할 필요성이 있고 지나치게 소문화된 문항도 줄여서 법률사무를 잘 수행할 수 있는 능력을 갖춘 예비법조인이 아닌 글씨를 빨리 쓰는 사람을 선발하는 시험이 되지 않도록 해야 한다. 기록형 시험은 법리 위주의 출제보다는 기록형 유형에서만 평가 가능한 ‘사실인정’ 능력을 평가할 수 있는 방향으로 출제되어야 한다. 법리는 선택형 및 사례형 시험에서 충분히 평가 가능하다. 그리고 유무죄 여부를 객관적으로 가리는 ‘사실인정’을 묻기에는 검토의견서 형식의 서류를 작성하도록 출제하는 것이 반드시 필요하다. 나아가 ‘교육’을 통한 법조인 양성을 목표로 하는 법학전문대학원의 제도적 취지를 살리기 위해서는 자격시험화하여 합격률을 높이는 것이 필요하다. 이에 따른 법조인의 질적 수준 저하에 대한 우려는 로스쿨 교육기간의 연장, 필수과목의 확대 등 교육내용의 개선으로 충분히 해결할 수 있다고 보여진다. 법학전문대학원의 교육도 이론교육과 실무교육의 조화가 필요한데, 이론교육은 판례와 연계하여 현실과 동떨어지지 않는 교육을 할 필요가 있고 실무교육은 이론교육에서 다루지 못하는 ‘사실인정’ 연습을 주로 다루는 것이 필요하다. 한편 법학전문대학원 제도 도입 이후 학문으로서의 법학을 공부하는 학문후속세대 양성에 적신호가 켜졌는데, 법조인 양성 뿐만 아니라 일반대학원 운영에도 학교가 관심을 갖고 많은 지원을 하고, 순수 학문연구자들의 연구동기를 부여할 수 있는 다양한 제도를 도입하는 것이 필요하다. The current law school system is helping to resolve a disconnect between legal education and the training of legal professionals. It is also making it possible for people from diverse backgrounds to go into the field of law. At the same time, however, the current law school system calls for certain changes regarding both legal education and professional training. First, the bar exam needs to change in terms of both substance and format. The multiple-choice part of the exam should be a way to evaluate the test taker’s understanding of legal theories, instead of asking only about court decisions. The court decisions that do appear on the exam should be ones that are deemed crucial for test takers to know in order to practice law, and a list of the decisions that meet the criteria should be made known to law students and professors in advance. Another problem with the bar exam is that the long-answer questions significantly overlap with the “records” part of the exam. Both ask mostly about the liability of defendants and the admissibility of evidence, but these questions should belong to the “records” section. The long-answer questions should be essay-style questions that can measure a test-taker’s understanding of law from a comprehensive perspective. Those who design the exam should avoid including questions that focus on trivial/minor issues. The bar exam should not be a means to test how fast someone can write with his or her hand; it should rather be a way to test if a student is capable of handling legal practices. The records part of the exam should evaluate the ability to find the facts in a given case rather than the knowledge of abstract legal principles, since the latter can be measured in the multiple-choice and long-answer sections. In order to test the ability to find facts, the records section should include questions that ask for test takers to write up legal documents on the given case. Furthermore, for law schools to serve as institutions that specialize in legal “education” as training for future legal professionals, pass rate of the bar exam needs to be higher. A possible decline in the quality of legal service can be prevented by extending the law school curriculum from the current 3 years, and also by expanding the list of required courses. Law school education needs to strike a balance between theory and practice. The teaching of legal theory should revolve around court decisions so that students’ understanding of theory is closely tied to actual cases. The practical side of law school education should focus on developing fact-finding abilities, which cannot be done in theory classes. Meanwhile, since the introduction of the law school system, it has been difficult to find students who want to enter academia. The university should take interest not only in training students to become legal professionals but also in managing the masters’ and doctors’ programs, and give more incentive to those who consider academic careers.

일반 논문 : 법학교육자 김병로 -경성전수학교 및 보성전문에서 법학강의를 중심으로-

한인섭 ( In Sup Han ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2015 고려법학 Vol.0 No.77

Kim Pyong Ro is well known as the first Chief Justice of Korean Supreme Court. Under the colonial period, he enthusiastically defended as a lawyer the patriotic prisoners who fought for Korean independence against the Japanese Imperialism. His careers as a law teacher was not well known, and this study aims to illuminate where, and what, he taught and wrote under the colonial period. He taught courses including criminal law, civil law, etc. at two top law schools. During 1915-1919 years, he served as a law professor at the Kyungsung Professional School which was based on the governmental institution. From 1916 to 1938, he taught criminal law-its practical part at the Bosung Professional Law School which was famous for a national-private school. He could be titled as a forerunner of law teaching in modern Korea. During the initial period as a law professor, he took part in the publication of law journal called Buphakgae on the bimonthly basis. He contributed a lot of paper to the journal. He introduced Japanese legal academics to various law field, but he tried to maintain the critical distance from it. In 1955, Korea University conferred him a honorarydoctorate for celebrating his contribution as law teacher, lawyering, and the prominent role as chief justice.

학술대회발표문 : 고려대학교 법학연구원 주최 세미나 ; 신용정보의 이용 활성화와 프라이버시 보호 : 개인신용정보의 유통과 프라이버시의 보호

이성환 ( Sung Whan Lee ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2007 고려법학 Vol.0 No.48

국제통상법의 최근 쟁점 ; 한국의 GATT/WTO체제 경험과 국제경제법학의 발전

배연재 ( Yeon Jae Bae ),박노형 ( No Hvoung Park ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2014 고려법학 Vol.0 No.73

Korea has been among the top 10 trading countries since 2009.The main reason for its economic development can be traced back to Korea’s accession to the GATT from the perspective of international economic law. Korea was able to achieve rapid economic growth based on trade, especially exports, since its accession in 1967. Over a span of about 20 years since 1967, Korea was not expected to perform its full obligations under the GATT as a developing country, and this was not much of a concern to other contracting parties. However, as Korea’s trade volumes rose rapidly during the 1980s and recorded trade surplus, Korea was pressed not to use trade restrictions for balance-of payment purposes under GATT Article XVIII:B, and to conform with full GATT obligations. Korea eventually agreed to disinvoke Article XVIII:B in 1989. Since then, Korea has been one of active participants of the GATT, and the WTO from its beginning in 1995. As the multilateral trade system transformed from the GATT to the WTO, international economic law was educated and studied as a branch of law in Korea. In spite of Korea’s trade growth and the deepening of foreign dependency, international economic law did not receive much attention for almost 30 years since GATT accession. As Korea was not obliged to fully follow the GATT obligations, in particular GATT Article XVIII:B, as a developing country, there was not much of a need domestically to study an elaborate set of international norms. However, after the Uruguay Round and Korea’s inevitable position to open up the rice market, the necessity of expertise in international economic law together with negotiations has gained wider recognition. The importance of education and research in international economic law has been accepted generally. With the new establishment of law schools, however, students and faculty members are pressured by the fact that their schools have to produce high pass rate on the bar examination, and international economic law as an optional subject is neglected at least at this point in time. Nevertheless, in order for Korea to continually grow and develop as one of leading trading countries, understanding of international economic law, a body of international norms regulating international economic relations, is unavoidable. A simultaneous development of Korea’s international trade and international economic law is necessary.

고려법학 106년 회고 및 전망 -민사소송법의 관점에서-

정영환 ( Young Hwan Chung ) 고려대학교 법학연구원 2013 고려법학 Vol.0 No.68

Under the title “Retrospecting one hundred and six years of Korea Law Review and prospecting its future”, this article is describing the retrospect and prospect of the journal from the perspective of civil procedure. Korea Law Review has roots in Bosung Law Review that was first published in 1907, by “Bosung University”, the former self of Korea University. Because academic values of Korea Law Review have been established by faculty members of Bosung University and Korea University, this article first examines faculty members of the two universities; then it briefly looks through contents of the scholarly articles published in Korea Law Review. This article reviews contents of two articles more thoroughly that were published in Bosung Law Review in 1908, because they are thought to have important meaning in terms of legal history of Korean civil procedure. Likewise, this article looks back one hundred and six years of Korea law Review. Based on the retrospect, this article briefly suggests possible directions of future development of the journal in lieu of the prospect of it.