「법학전문대학원 설치·운영에 관한 법률」상 법학적성시험에 관한 소고

정태종 가천대학교 법학연구소 2018 가천법학 Vol.11 No.3

법학적성시험은 법학전문대학원 입학 시 학부성적, 외국어능력, 심층면접 등과 함께 중요한 입학 전형자료 중 하나로 평가된다. 법학적성시험은「법 학전문대학원 설치·운영에 관한 법률」제23조 및 제24조에 의해 시행되고 있으며, 2018년 현재까지 총 11회에 걸쳐 시행되었다. 법학전문대학원 입학 전형에서 적격자 선발 기능을 제고하고, 국제화 다원화 시대에 맞는 다양하고 전문화된 법조 인력을 양성하여 법률 서비스의 질의 향상이라는 법학전문대학원제도의 취지를 달성하기 위해서는 법학적성시험의 정착이 중요한 역할을 한다고 할 것이다. 법학적성시험은 2008년 첫 시험 이후, 2009년 약간의 변화를 거쳐 시행되어 왔다. 다만 법학적성시험에서 법학 기초지식을 측정할 수 없도록 되어 있기 때문에 법학적성시험이 법학 수학 능력과의 연관성을 갖는데 한계가 있었고, 법학적성시험이 실제 학생들의 법학수학능력과 큰 연관성이 없다는 지적이 있어왔다. 이러한 문제제기와 관련하여 2019년 시험은 다소 큰 변화를 겪게 되었다. 본 논문은 ‘법학전문대학원법’에서 규정하고 있는 법학적성시험에 대하여 고찰하고, 한국의 제도와 유사하게 운영되고 있는 미국 및 일본의 법 학적성시험제도와의 비교분석을 통하여 향후 법학적성시험의 개선 방안을 제시하고자 한다. The law aptitude test is evaluated as one of the most important data on admission, along with undergraduate grades, foreign language ability, and in-depth interviews, when entering graduate schools. The Legal Suitability Test is conducted under Article 23 and Article 24 of the Law on the Establishment and Operation of School of Law, and has been conducted a total of 11 times until 2018. In order to enhance the function of selecting eligible students in admission to law schools, and to foster diverse and specialized legal staff for the era of globalization, the system of law graduate schools is to achieve the quality of legal services. The law aptitude test has gone through some changes since the first test in 2008. However, since the legal aptitude test is not allowed to measure the basic knowledge of law in the legal aptitude test, the legal aptitude test has no limits in its association with the legal mathematics ability of students. In connection with this challenge, the 2019 test went through some big changes. This paper considers the Legal Suitability Test, which is stipulated in the Law School Law, and compares it with the legal aptitude test system of the United States and Japan, which operates similarly to the Korean system.

동아시아에서의 법학교육

김차동 ( Cha Dong Kim ) 한국법정책학회 2010 법과 정책연구 Vol.10 No.1

대한민국 교육과학기술부가 2008.8.경 전국 25개 국립 또는 사립대학교에 법학전문대학원의 설립허가를 하였고, 그 법학전문대학원은 2009.3.1.부터 개교하였다. 이러한 법학전문대학원은 기존의 사법시험제도가 그 합격율이 대단히 낮아 시험과목 배정의 문제로 말미암아 법학교육의 파행을 초래하였고, 새로운 국제화시대에 걸맞는 법조인을 배출하지 못하는 한계를 드러내었기 때문에 법학교육개혁의 일환으로 도입된 것이다. 일본은 이에 앞서 2004.4.경부터 새로운 법학전문대학원을 도입하여 이미 7년여 시행하였고, 3번에 걱쳐 신사법시험을 시행하기도 하였다. 대만의 경우도 대한민국과 일본의 이러한 법학교육개혁논의에 자극받아 개혁을 논의하였으나, GIILS만을 도입하였으나, 그 제도는 미봉책이란 비판을 받고 있다. 대한민국의 새로운 법학전문대학원하에서의 법학교육은 장래 시행될 사법시험의 출제난이도, 합격율과 그 시험과목에 따라 성패가 결정날 것이다. 일본은 낮은 합격율로 말미암아 다시 입학정원을 조정하고 일부 학교의 설립인가를 반납하게 하는 등 재조정이 이루어지고 있는 점은 대한민국의 장래 법학교육에 대하여 시사하는 바가 많다.

법학전문대학원 제도의 성과와 발전방향 -그 도입논의 및 최근쟁점과 관련하여-

송석윤 ( Seog Yun Song ) 한국법교육학회 2015 법교육연구 Vol.10 No.3

우리나라에서 법학전문대학원 제도에 대한 논의는 1987년 민주화 이후 법학계에서 본격적으로 논의되었다. 이후 김영삼정부에서의 쟁점화, 김대중정부에서의 구체화, 노무현정부에서의 도입결정, 이명박정부에서의 도입이라는 장시간의 과정을 거쳐 법학전문대학원 제도가 도입되었다.법학전문대학원 제도를 비판하는 논거로 독일과 일본에서의 실패를 드는 것은 적절하지 않다. 독일에서는 미국식 로스쿨제도를 도입한 바가 없으며 일본에서는 우리나라에서 먼저 만들어진 개혁모델을 따르지 않았기 때문이다.기성법조계의 반대로 미국이나 독일에서처럼 법률가의 수를 시장의 기능에 맡길 수 없었던 우리나라의 현실에서 법학전문대학원 설립에 대한 엄격한 준칙주의와 총 정원제는 우리 나라의 현실을 고려한 오랜 숙고와 타협의 결과물이었다.법학전문대학원 제도는 대학교육 및 법학교육의 정상화에 기여하고 비교적 성공적으로 정착하고 있다. 학부에 남은 법과대학의 문제, 로스쿨 전환 대학에서의 학부 법학교육 문제,학문후속세대 양성의 문제, 비용문제, 법률가의 직역확대의 문제 등에 대해서는 계속적인 논의가 필요하다. The discussions on introducing law school system in South Korea began with the democratization of 1987 in the academic world and became important issue of the educational and judicial reform since Kim, Young-Sam regime(1993-1998).It shows that the introduction of law school system was result of long consideration.It is not proper that critics say that the law school system has not been successful in Germany and in Japan: Germany has never introduced American style law school system; Japan did not follow the Korean pragmatic model.In the South Korean reality, the established interests of lawyers did not allow that the total number of lawyers could be decided according to the market. The Korean reformers took this reality into consideration. The limit of the total number of law school students and the strict standards for the law school permission were the outcomes of the pragmatic consideration of this reality and compromises.The law school system in South Korea has been contributed to the normalization of the university education as a whole and the normalization of legal education. The problems such as legal education at the undergraduate level, training the academic future generations, school expenses, expanding the practice areas of lawyers etc. seem to need further discussions.

일본 로스쿨의 교육현황과 신사법시험의 출제경향 및 시사점 - 상사법 분야를 중심으로 -

김홍기 한국상사법학회 2017 商事法硏究 Vol.36 No.1

2004년 야심차게 출발한 일본의 로스쿨(法科大學院)은 신사법시험 합격률 저하와 예비시험 응시생의 증가로 입학생의 수가 크게 감소하고, 모집정지가 잇따르면서 위기를 맞고 있다. 로스쿨의 숫자는 2007년 74개교에서 2016년 44개교로 감소했고, 입학정원도 2007년 5,824명에서 2016년 2,500명(실제 입학생수 1,857명)으로 감소하였다. 이는 한국의 로스쿨 입학정원(2,000명) 보다도 적은 숫자인데, 로스쿨 수료자의 신사법시험 합격률이 낮아지면서 우수인재가 로스쿨의 지원을 회피하기 때문이라고 생각한다. 이 글은 우리나라보다 5년 앞서 로스쿨을 도입·운영하고 있는 일본의 사례를 분석하고 우리나라에의 시사점을 논의한 것이다. 필자는 전공이 상사법 분야이므로 상사법 분야에 중점을 두어서 살펴보았다. 일본의 현황과 실태를 조사하면서 느낀 바는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 로스쿨에서의 교육을 통한 법조인 양성제도와 사법시험 등 시험을 통한 법조인 양성제도는 쉽게 양립하기 어렵다는 것이다. 교육을 통한 법조인 양성제도의 취지를 살리려면 변호사시험은 로스쿨의 교육을 보완하는 수준에 그쳐야 하고 설립취지를 해치는 정도가 되어서는 아니된다. 일본 로스쿨이 겪는 어려움은 로스쿨을 도입하였음에도 불구하고 그와 상치되는 제도인 예비시험을 통한 법조인 배출을 허용하였기 때문인데, 우리나라의 로스쿨 운영에서는 이러한 교훈을 잊어서는 아니된다. 둘째, 우리나라의 경우에 일본 등 다른 나라에 비교해서 법학교육의 저변이 너무 부실하다는 것이다. 이는 로스쿨 출범과 더불어 법학부를 폐지하고 학부에서의 법학교육을 금지시킨 것 때문인데, 일반시민의 사회·경제생활에 필요한 기본적인 법학교육까지 엄격히 제한하고 있어서 기초적인 법학교육 및 법학연구자의 양성에 어려움을 겪고 있다. 이를 해소하기 위해서는 학부에서의 교양법학교육을 강화하고, 로스쿨 미설치 대학의 법학과 학생들이 판사, 검사, 변호사 이외에 법학의 수요가 필요한 직역에 다양하게 진출할 수 있도록 지원하는 방안이 강구되어야 한다. 셋째, 기본적인 법학지식을 습득하기 위해서는 기본과목과 실무과목의 교육이 필요하지만, 변호사시험을 위한 수험과목의 수강집중현상이 심화되면서 다양한 시각과 전문성을 가진 법조인의 양성이라는 로스쿨의 취지가 살아나고 있지 못하다는 것이다. 이러한 적폐를 해소하기 위해서는 변호사시험 합격률을 높여서 정상적인 교육이 이루어지게 하여야 한다. 3년의 로스쿨 교육기간이 너무 짧다면, 학부단위 6년제 로스쿨로 전환하여 충분하게 교육하는 것이 옳다고 생각한다.

한국 로스쿨(법학전문대학원)제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구 -일본 로스쿨(법과대학원)제도의 운영 경험을 중심으로-

( Chang Shin Kwack ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.37 No.4

Both Korean and Japanese Government decided to introduce the ‘law school system’ for reforming the long-debated problems such as the education system in the college of law, the bar-examination and the training system of the future legal professionals. While Korean government approved only small number of law schools by establishing the high criteria which were very difficult to reach. Japanese government approved many law schools if they passed the certain low criteria which were very easy to meet. Twenty-five law schools with 2,000 students in Korea started in March of 2009, while sixty-eight law schools with 5,600 students in Japan started in April of 2004. There are many similarities between Korean law school system and that of Japanese in that two systems are one of modified American-style law school. However, we can find more differences than we think, if we compare them in detail. During the five-year-experiences of operation, Korean law schools found some problems. 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 Korean law school system. The other group of problems is fundamental problems including the assertion of abolition of law school system itself. Short-term problems of Korean law schools are as follows, excessive financial burden of students because of expensive tuition, abnormal operation phenomena of law school curriculum because of the over-heated competition for good GPA and for the preparation of bar-examination, the criticism on the lack of law-related knowledge of law school graduates because of the shortage of learning time within 3 years of law school system, serious financial difficulties of each law school, the serious difficulties in finding the lawyer-jobs for the law school graduates and so on. From the opening of law school system, Japanese law schools have been in difficult situation because of fundamental problems such as imbalance between the number of law school(students) and number of successful applicants in Japanese Bar-examination. For example, only 26.8%(2,049) of applicants(7,653) could pass the Japanese Bar-exam. in 2013. Because of the above-mentioned problems, Japanese law schools have suffered from the shortage of applicant in entrance examination. In 2013, 64 law schools(93%) could not fill the entrance exam. quota of each law school, and only 2,698 students(63%) entered 69 law schools with the total quota of 4,261 students. The on-going process of reforming the Japanese law schools could be expected from the start of law school system. And the problems of Japanese law schools have been deteriorating from the opening year. Finally in August of 2012 the Central Government of Japan decided to establish ‘Committee of Ministers for the Reform of the Legal Professionals’ Education and Training’. 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 maintain the current law school system for the time being. It decided to reform some easy problems of law school system, however it delayed its final decision regarding the difficult tasks such as the optimum number of lawyers in Japan in the future, the methods of reforming the low-performance law schools, preliminary-exam. system for the regular bar-exam.Japanese Government decided to create and operate 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 of the Japanese law school systems including the fore-mentioned difficult tasks. The new Committee was established in September of 2013 and it will last for 2 years. From the lessons of the Japanese law school reform experience, 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, Korean law schools and Government had better wait and see the Japanese reform of law school system. Lastly, it is advisable that Korean Central Government and Korean Association of Law Schools should be prepared to learn from the Japanese law school reform experiences. And it is also advisable that Korean Central Government and National Assembly should establish the ‘Joint Committee’ to discuss the ‘Reform Plan’ of the Korean law schools.

법학전문대학원의 현단계를 점검한다 법학전문대학원에 대한 국고지원의 필요성에 관한 연구 -일본의 경험으로부터의 참고-

신우철 ( Woo Cheol Shin ) 법과사회이론학회 2009 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.36

한국 로스쿨(법학전문대학원)제도의 개선방안에 관한 연구-일본 로스쿨(법과대학원)제도의 운영 경험을 중심으로-

곽창신 단국대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.37 No.4

Both Korean and Japanese Government decided to introduce the ‘law school system’ for reforming the long-debated problems such as the education system in the college of law, the bar-examination and the training system of the future legal professionals. While Korean government approved only small number of law schools by establishing the high criteria which were very difficult to reach. Japanese government approved many law schools if they passed the certain low criteria which were very easy to meet. Twenty-five law schools with 2,000 students in Korea started in March of 2009, while sixty-eight law schools with 5,600 students in Japan started in April of 2004. There are many similarities between Korean law school system and that of Japanese in that two systems are one of modified American-style law school. However, we can find more differences than we think, if we compare them in detail. During the five-year-experiences of operation, Korean law schools found some problems. 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 Korean law school system. The other group of problems is fundamental problems including the assertion of abolition of law school system itself. Short-term problems of Korean law schools are as follows, excessive financial burden of students because of expensive tuition, abnormal operation phenomena of law school curriculum because of the over-heated competition for good GPA and for the preparation of bar-examination, the criticism on the lack of law-related knowledge of law school graduates because of the shortage of learning time within 3 years of law school system, serious financial difficulties of each law school, the serious difficulties in finding the lawyer-jobs for the law school graduates and so on. From the opening of law school system, Japanese law schools have been in difficult situation because of fundamental problems such as imbalance between the number of law school(students) and number of successful applicants in Japanese Bar-examination. For example, only 26.8%(2,049) of applicants(7,653) could pass the Japanese Bar-exam. in 2013. Because of the above-mentioned problems, Japanese law schools have suffered from the shortage of applicant in entrance examination. In 2013, 64 law schools(93%) could not fill the entrance exam. quota of each law school, and only 2,698 students(63%) entered 69 law schools with the total quota of 4,261 students. The on-going process of reforming the Japanese law schools could be expected from the start of law school system. And the problems of Japanese law schools have been deteriorating from the opening year. Finally in August of 2012 the Central Government of Japan decided to establish ‘Committee of Ministers for the Reform of the Legal Professionals’ Education and Training’. 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 maintain the current law school system for the time being. It decided to reform some easy problems of law school system, however it delayed its final decision regarding the difficult tasks such as the optimum number of lawyers in Japan in the future, the methods of reforming the low-performance law schools, preliminary-exam. system for the regular bar-exam.Japanese Government decided to create and operate 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 of the Japanese law school systems including the fore-mentioned difficult tasks. The new Committee was established in September of 2013 and it will last for 2 years. From the lessons of the Japanese law school reform experience, there can be two approaches for Korean law schools. In the short term, Korean ...

한국 로스쿨(법학전문대학원)제도 현황 및 향후 개선방향에 관한 연구 -일본 로스쿨(법학대학원)제도 운영 경험을 중심으로-

곽창신 ( Chang-shin Kwack ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논총 Vol.36 No.2

Both Korean and Japanese law schools were introduced to reform the long-debated problems of the education system in the college of law, the bar-examination and the training system of the future legal professionals. In Korea the discussion of reforming the Judicial System including the introduction of American the law school system officially started on the government level in 1995 during the Kim Young-sam Government. However, it failed because of the strong resistance from the legal circles. Another attempt during the following Kim Dae-jung Government also failed because of the unprecedented IMF financial crisis in Korea and persistent resistance from the legal circles. During Noh Mu-hyun Government, ``the Act on the Establishment and Management of Law School`` finally passed the National Assembly in July of 2007. While Korean government approved only small number of law schools by establishing the high criteria which were very difficult to reach. Japanese government approved many law schools if they passed the certain low criteria which were very easy to satisfy. Twenty-five law schools with 2,000 students in Korea started in March of 2009, while sixty-eight law schools with 5,600 students in Japan started in April of 2004. There are many similarities between Korean law school system and that of Japanese in that two systems are one of modified American-style professional graduate schools such as medical school. However, we can find more differences than we imagine, if we compare them in detail. During three-year-experiences of operation, Korean law schools found some problems such as lack of faithful practice-oriented education and the need for strengthening the relation between the bar examination and the law school education. We can separate the problems of Korean law school into two groups. One group of problems is short-term problems which are necessary for the soft landing of Korean law school system. The other group of problems is fundamental problems including the assertion of abolishment of law school system which should be dealt with long-term perspectives. Short-term problems of Korean law schools are as follows, the difficulties in finding the jobs of future lawyers of law school graduates, excessive burden of law school students because of expensive tuition, serious financial difficulties of each law school and so on. From the beginning of law school system, Japanese law schools have been in difficult situation because of fundamental problems such as imbalance between the number of law school(students) and number of successful applicants in Japanese Bar-examination. For example, only 23.5%(2,063) of applicants(8,765) passed the Japanese Bar-exam. in 2011. The on-going process of reforming of Japanese law schools could be expected from the start of law school system. The Central Government of Japan adopted the policy of voluntarism in correcting the problems from 2009 with financial assistance measures. It advised each law school to cut the number of student quota and close the law schools in the extreme cases. Thus 5 law schools among 74 Japanese law schools are scheduled to close as of April of 2013. Finally, in August of 2012 the Central Government of Japan decided to establish ``Ad-hoc ministers meeting for reforming the training legal professionals`` and it is expected to finalize its duty in August of 2013. In Korea also new Government will start from February of 2013. It means that ``the year of 2013`` will be an golden opportunity for Korea to reform its law school system. There have been claims that Korea also should reform its law school system fundamentally. So it is advisable that Korean Central Government and Korean Association of Law Schools should be prepared to learn from the Japanese law school reform experiences.

법학전문대학원에서의 법조윤리 교육의 실태와 개선방향

최단비(Choi Dan Bie) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2014 圓光法學 Vol.30 No.2

The method of selecting attorneys in Korea is changed from bar exam to Law school in 2009. Under the act on the establishment and management of professional Law schools, legal ethics is adopted as one of the required courses for the exam to be attorneys. Because there is no course that is legal ethics under bar exam system, reviewing the state and how performs the education of legal ethics in Law school is important at this stage which is after 5 years from starting the Law school system. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to look behind the education of legal ethics in Law school for 5 years and review the problems of the education of legal ethics. Afterwards the purpose of this paper is to provide the solution for the problems of legal ethics in Law school at this stage. In addition, Refering the study about education of legal ethics in Japan Las school which has been started 5 years ahead of us in 2004 such as how performs the education of legal ethics and which problems indicate is helpful. Therefore this paper compare the education of legal ethics in Korea Law school with Japan such as the state of education of legal ethics, which curriculum time is best, qualification of professor for legal ethics, range of education, teaching method and curriculum. Through these comparative and review, this paper point out problems of current education of legal ethics such as education level which enumerate the articles of Attorney At Law Act under the circumstances that the test type is only optional and the goal of education is preparing for the test of legal ethics by Ministry of Justice. After this pointing out, this paper provide the new teachig method such as performing the deepen learning by expressing students' own view through report and/or discussion and investing time for specific theme for deepen learning.

일본의 노동법 교육

조상균(趙翔均) 한국노동법학회 2010 노동법학 Vol.0 No.35