법학교육과 법조인선발의 나아갈 방향의 헌법정책적 검토 = Legal judicial Education system reform Review

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

It is merely a policy paper on the current reality rather than a scientific paper based on judicial resources. Education must be one hundred year plan because only a small number of personnel selection justice tests do not take into account the demand seriously. The fundamental purpose of the Law School must be selected by marketoriented Law School reform in addition to the training of the legal profession through education. predictable premise that the combination of hands-on training to realize how built an experienced jump directly into practice and the resulting social predictable society established through the establishment of the rule of law, etc. will be an important objective. The conclusion is not to insist on unconditional undergraduate education system. If judicial policy reform failures led to confusion about this, who will pay a huge cost and time confusing, will be seriously considered in procedural aspects. The alternative will be the bar exam yet which can be improved in the state at a lower cost and this alternative improve the current legal education more reasonable alternative than the current Law School system. But the abolition of bar exam by the state, should be avoided after Law School system is proved to be better than undergraduate education system. Single law school that was claimed as part of the reform, must be changed into the consortium format Because you see the advantage of a number of universities, which combines the characteristics. We must regulate the monopoly because the unfair monopoly is vested for consumers and does not help to consumer welfare. Current Law School system, such monopolies, should be considered more seriously whether an exception to the monopoly is really good to the public. Judicial reform must truly guarantee the fundamental rights of the owner of the citizens of this country in the point of true democracy

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이관희, "한국 법학교육 정상화 방안" 헌법학연구 19 (3) : 431 ~ 465, 2013

2 가토마사노부, "일본과 한국에서 있어서의 법학전문대학원 제도의 도입" 비교법연구 5, 2004

3 이달휴, "양극화해소와 법학전문대학원" 법학논고 24, 2006

4 한상혁, "사법연수생들 "로스쿨 출신들과 공개 경쟁시험 치르게 해달라" 조선일보, 2013

5 김원찬, "사법개혁위원회 자료집 (Ⅴ)" 사법개혁위원회, 2007

6 사법제도개혁추진위원회, "사법 선진화를 위한 개혁: 사법제도개혁추진위원회 백서(상)" 2006

7 김인회, "법학학위과정 폐지론을 중심으로 본 한국의 법학전문대학원" 법학연구 13 (3) : 271 ~ 312, 2010

8 김경제, "법학연구와 법학교육의 현안과 미래- 법과대학의 시각에서 -, 변호사 예비시험제도 도입 필요한가?" 변호사예비시험 도입 2차 토론회, 2013

9 김경제, "법학교육 연계를 통한 법과대학과 법학전문대학원의 공존 방안" 법학논총 21 (1) : 37 ~ 63, 2014

10 김용섭, "법조인력 선발ㆍ양성제도 개선 논의의 방향과 지향점" 법조인선발ㆍ양성제도개선에 관한 심포지엄, 2013

11 정준영, "법률구조공단, 같은 변호사 다른 채용...'로스쿨 출신은 필기시험 치세요" 아시아경제신문, 2012

12 정호열, "로스툴정원 어덯게 할 것인가?" 경쟁저널 참조, 2005

13 이상수, "로스쿨 제도, 과연 도입할 만한가?― 전문성제고와 고비용 사이의 선택 ―" 민주법학 (29) : 445 ~ 466, 2005

14 "기타 각종 정책세미나에서의 본인의 의견과 여러분의 고견을 전제로 작성되었음"

15 사법개혁위원회, "국민과 함께 하는 사법개혁 - 사법개혁위원회 백서" 2005

16 "2008. 12. 26. 2008헌마192 전원재판부 결정(법학전문대학원 설치인가 심사기준 위헌확인)을 기초로작성되었음" 2008