변호사의 비밀유지의무

김태봉 전남대학교 법학연구소 2016 법학논총 Vol.36 No.4

Recently, there have been a growing number of issues in the field of Korean law surrounding lawyer’s duty of confidentiality, such as the legitimacy of search and seizure of legal advisory documents by investigation agencies. Putting an emphasis on lawyers’ duty of confidentiality over clients’ information, the Korean law has rules about the duty in the Lawyers Act in pursuit of professional ethics and about one’s right to refuse to testify and be seized in the criminal procedure code in pursuit of the law of evidence. However, there is a considerable gap between a general ethic and a duty of confidentiality, which is lawyers’ professional responsibility. This article seeks to examine the gravity of a duty of confidentiality through exploring representative examples in the U.S. that caused conflicts between the two ethics. Also, I hope to provide implications that may minimize the conflicts between general and lawyers’ ethics. With respect to a duty of confidentiality, the concept of ‘confidentiality’ first and foremost needs to aim to protect clients and, therefore, include all the information relevant to related work. Moreover, restrictive interpretations in the interest of public interest justification or defending lawyers’ rights should be avoided. As the civil and criminal procedure codes define a right to refuse testify and be seized as one of the lawyers’ rights, it can be seen as a right of confidentiality. Nevertheless, it is also insisted that confidentiality between clients and lawyers may not be secured under the current law, if those rules are to be interpreted based on the Attorney-Client Privilege (ACP) and the Work Product Rule (WPR) in the U.S. law. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the Lawyers Act to introduce the ACP and WPR in pursuit of a more comprehensive protection, such as expanding the range of subjects and objects of a right of confidentiality and providing legal advice based on the expanded range. Lawyers’ duty of confidentiality is crucial in that it forms the backbone of our judicial system. However, this right should be eased or lifted when it collides with the public status of lawyers. Currently, the Ethic Code for Lawyers and the Lawyers Act merely list some abstract reasons, such as ‘public interest justification’, and do not define the concept of public interest, leaving any relevant interpretations to courts. On the other hand, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) of the American Bar Association stipulate possible cases when lawyers are allowed to break confidentiality regarding criminal acts of clients and it has become less strict. Hence, in interpreting our laws, I argue that the scope of possible cases of lifting confidentiality obligations should be widened for protecting public interest, referring to other rules such as the MRPC. Ultimately, specific criteria should be prepared by revising the current Lawyers Act, as well as the Ethic Code for Attorneys. 최근 들어 우리 법조에서도 수사기관에 의한 법률자문자료의 압수수색 적법 여부 등변호사의 비밀유지의무와 관련된 논란이 빈번하게 발생하고 있다. 의뢰인과 관련된 정보에 대한 비밀유지는 변호사제도의 중추를 이루고 있는바, 우리 법체계에서는 변호사의 직무윤리적인 측면에서 변호사법 등에 비밀유지의무에 관한 규정을, 증거법적 관점에서 형사소송법 등에 증언 및 압수거부권에 관한 규정을 각 두고 있다. 그런데 일반윤리와 전문직의 직무윤리인 비밀유지의무와 사이에는 적지 않은 괴리가 존재한다. 두 윤리 사이에서 갈등을 야기한 미국의 대표적 사례들을 통하여 비밀유지의무가 얼마나 중요한 가치인지를 가늠해 보고, 일반윤리와 변호사윤리 사이의 갈등을 최소화하는 방안을 모색해 본다. 비밀유지의무의 내용과 관련하여 비밀의 개념은 의뢰인 보호를 첫 번째 목표로 하여직무와의 관련성 있는 모든 정보를 포괄하는 것으로 넓게 보아야 하고, 공익상의 필요나 변호사 자신의 권리 옹호 등을 내세워 축소해석을 하여서는 안 된다. 한편 민사소송법과 형사소송법이 증언거부권 또는 압수거부권을 변호사의 권리로 규정하고 있으므로이를 비밀유지권으로 파악할 수 있다 할 것이다. 그런데 위 규정들에 관하여 미국법상의 변호사-의뢰인의 비밀유지특권(ACP)과 소송준비자료의 개시면책(WPR)을 참고하여해석할 경우 현행법 체계로도 의뢰인과 변호사 사이의 비밀이 충분히 보호될 수 있다는 주장도 없지 않다. 그러나 비밀유지권의 주체 및 대상의 확대와, 그것을 통한 법률자문 등의 폭넓은 보호를 위하여 ACP와 WPR을 도입하는 것을 내용으로 하는 변호사법의개정이 반드시 필요하다 할 것이다. 변호사의 비밀유지의무는 사법제도의 근간을 이루는 중요한 제도이나, 그것이 변호사의 공익적 지위 등과 충돌하는 경우에는 그 의무를 완화하거나 해제할 필요가 있다. 그 해제사유와 관련하여 변호사법이나 변호사윤리장전 등은 ‘공익상의 이유’ 등 추상적사유를 열거하고 있을 뿐, 공익의 개념에 관하여는 아무런 규정을 두지 아니함으로써그에 관한 판단을 고스란히 법원에 맡기고 있다. 그런데 미국변호사협회의 「직무행위에 관한 표준규칙」은 그와 관련하여 의뢰인의 범죄행위에 관한 비밀의 개시가 가능한경우를 구체적으로 규정하고 있고, 그 사유를 완화해 가고 있다. 따라서 우리 법규를 해석함에 있어서도 공익상의 이유에 의한 비밀유지의무 해제에 관하여는 미국변호사협회의 위 규칙 등을 참고하되 그 범위를 가급적 넓히는 것이 바람직하고, 궁극적으로는 변호사법규와 윤리장전을 개정하여 공익상의 이유 등을 유형화하는 등으로 그에 관한 구체적 기준을 제시하여야 할 것이다.

변호인·의뢰인 비밀유지권과 압수에 관한 입법 개선 - 형사소송법 제112조 압수거부권 조항 등의 현행 해석론과 개정안의 한계를 중심으로 -

김은열 한국형사정책학회 2023 刑事政策 Vol.35 No.2

While the client discloses confidential information to the attorney to receive assistance as an exception in a criminal procedure that implements the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare (no man is bound to accuse himself), the more the client trusts the attorney, the greater the risk of a disadvantage the client faces when confidential information is leaked. To guarantee the defendant's right to defense, it would be needed to institutionally protect the client facing such a dilemma by granting the privileged status to confidential information between the attorney and client. Attorney-client confidentiality, such as attorney-client privilege (ACP) in US laws and legal professional privilege (LPP) in British laws, is enacted into law in many countries in the above context with provisions about the objects subject to such confidentiality, reasons for exceptions, procedures to exercise such confidentiality, and procedural effect against any infringement. In Korea, since the Supreme Court en banc decision on May 17, 2012(Case Number: 2009DO6788) explicitly denied attorney-client confidentiality as a constitutional right, there have been legislative efforts to define attorney-client confidentiality as a legal right. Once a year since 2017, a partial amendment has been proposed for Article 26 (Duty to Maintain Confidentiality) of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Recently in 2023, a couple of partial amendments to Articles 112 and 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act were also proposed. While these proposed amendments may be considered desirable legislative efforts in terms of guaranteeing the right redundantly, a comparison of the proposed amendments shows discrepancies in the requirements and procedures to exercise the right. To prevent unnecessary redundant amendments, it is urgently needed to consolidate the proposed amendments or make the language consistent. Amid these legislative trends to incorporate attorney-client confidentiality into law, this article aims to review the literature and the current interpretation and delve into what is not covered in these proposed amendments to explore better directions for the Attorney-at-Law Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. To begin with, an amendment to Article 26 of the Attorney-at-Law Act alone cannot establish who has attorney-client confidentiality, how such confidentiality can be exercised, and whether the state's power can limit the effect of such confidentiality. Hence, it is crucial to amend the Criminal Procedure Act alone or together with the Attorney-at-Law. Meanwhile, although “necessary for important public interests” as a reason for an exception from the right to resist seizure under Article 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act determines whether the right to resist seizure can be exercised, and therefore, effectively functions as an independent requirement, it is worded as a very ambiguous concept, which makes it difficult to make a judgment about it. Annotations for the Criminal Procedure Act, which are supposed to provide a clue, also leave it to government agencies including the prosecution and the police, which are often in conflict with the subject of attorney-client confidentiality, to make a judgment. Not only that they also provide an interpretation which contradicts Article 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which shares the same legislative purpose. This leads to the neutralization of the right under Article 112, but is not covered in the recently proposed amendment to the Act. Despite the principle of equality of arms in the criminal procedure, there is always an imbalance in reality between the accused or defendant and the government agency. To allow the attorney to bridge this imbalance, guaranteeing strict attorney-client confidentiality for communication with the client must be recognized in law, and only free communication between the attorney and client based on such confidentiality would realize the right to a fair trial in effect. As a series of ... 자기부죄금지원칙(nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare)이 구현되는 형사절차에서 의뢰인은 조력을 받고자 예외적으로 변호인에게 비밀을 개시하나, 변호인을 신뢰할수록 비밀누설시 불이익을 당할 리스크가 증가한다. 피고인의 방어권을 보장하려면 변호인·의뢰인 간 비밀에 특권적 지위를 부여해 의뢰인을 이러한 딜레마 상황에서 제도적으로 보호할 필요가 있다. 미국법상 변호사·의뢰인 특권(ACP, Attorney- Client Privilege), 영국법상 법률전문가 특권(LPP, Legal Professional Privilege) 등의 이른바 비밀유지권은 이러한 맥락에서 법제화되어, 규정과 판례법리를 통하여 특권의 목적물과 예외사유, 행사절차, 침해시 소송법적 효과 등을 정하고 있다. 우리나라에서는 대법원 2012. 5. 17. 선고 2009도6788 전원합의체 판결에서 ‘이른바 변호인·의뢰인 특권’의 헌법상 권리성을 정면으로 부정한 이래, 이를 법률상 권리로 입법화하려는 움직임이 꾸준히 있었다. 2017년 이후 연 1회격으로 변호사법 제26조 비밀유지의무 조항에 관한 일부개정법률안이 발의되어 왔고, 최근 2023. 5. 4. 형사소송법 제112조와 제149조의 각 제2항 개정 등에 관한 일부개정법률안 역시 발의되었다. 권리의 중첩적 보장 차원에서라면 바람직한 입법시도로 볼 여지가 있겠으나, 정작 발의된 개정안을 비교하면 권리 행사 요건과 절차가 서로 상이하다. 옥상옥(屋上屋) 형태의 중복입법을 막기 위하여는 개정안의 일원화 또는 자구 조율이 긴요하다. 이 글은 복수의 비밀유지권 법제화 동향을 배경으로, 변호사법과 형사소송법의 바람직한 개선 방향을 모색하는 차원에서 기존 문언과 현재 통용되는 해석론을 살펴보고, 개정안의 사각지대를 짚어보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 우선 변호사법 제26조 개정만으로는 비밀유지권의 행사방법과 국가권력의 실효적 제한 여부가 명쾌하게 정립되지 않으므로 형사소송법 단독·병행 개정은 필수적이다. 한편, 기존 형사소송법 제112조의 압수거부권 예외사유인 「중대한 공익상 필요」는 압수거부권의 행사 여부를 좌우하므로, 사실상 독립된 요건처럼 기능함에도 지극히 추상적인 개념으로 서술되어 판단이 어렵다. 실마리를 제공하여야 할 형사소송법 주석서 역시 그 판단을비밀의 주체(피의자 등)와 대립관계로 볼 수 있는 집행기관에 맡기거나, 입법목적이 동일한 형사소송법 제149조와 모순되는 해석론을 제공하여 사실상 권리를 형해화하고 있다. 그럼에도 해당 내용은 최근의 법률개정안에 반영되지 않고 있다. 형사소송의 무기대등원칙에도 불구하고 피의자·피고인과 국가기관 사이에는 언제나 현실적 불균형이 엄존한다. 변호인이 그 간극을 메우기 위하여는 적어도 의뢰인과 주고받은 정보에 관한 엄격한 비밀 보장이 인정되어야 하며, 그러한 보장을 신뢰한 변호인·의뢰인 간 자유로운 소통만이 공정한 재판을 받을 권리를 실효적으로 구현한다. 현재 발의된 일련의 개정법률안은 그 첫걸음이자 초석이 될 것이므로, 충실한 입법을 위하여는 형사사법질서를 구성하는 다른 법체계와의 정합성과 실무상 필요를 모두 반영하는 다각도의 심사와 검증이 필요하다.

변호사-의뢰인 간 의사교환의 비밀보장에 관한 연구 - 형사절차에서 증거수집 및 사용을 중심으로 -

이상훈 ( Lee Sanghoon ) 사법정책연구원 2022 연구보고서 Vol.2022 No.11

Communication between lawyers and clients has been protected as a matter of the lawyer's ethical duty of confidentiality in both Anglo-American and Continental law. Furthermore, the attorney-client privilege, which protects communications made in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client relationship, has been firmly established as a legal doctrine, particularly in Anglo-American jurisprudence. The purpose of the protection of confidentiality is to encourage clients to provide the attorney with all necessary information and protect information from disclosure against their will. In other words, this is a premise for lawyers to provide their clients with effective and appropriate legal assistance. However, the Korean Constitution and laws do not explicitly stipulate the general right to be guaranteed such confidentiality, and it is difficult to find that this right is guaranteed through the interpretation of the current laws. The Supreme Court confirmed through the 2009 Do 6788 all-inclusive decision on May 17, 2012, that the right to be guaranteed the confidentiality of communication between lawyers and clients is not rightly derived or recognized by the interpretation of the current laws and regulations. When the submission of evidence is made compulsory, the infringement of confidentiality of communication between lawyers and clients frequently occurs. And such issues are raised in Korea, particularly during the seizure under investigation in criminal proceedings. Without legislative improvement, it would be difficult to solve the current problems. This study's main goal is to seek legislative improvement measures for the aforementioned issues while also looking for implications by means of comparative legal analysis of relevant regulations in the United States, France, Germany, and other countries. Furthermore, this study suggests legislative measures that would effectively solve the problems in our current system. When settling the system after the relevant legislation, the comparative legal reviews in this study could be utilized as a reference for the interpretation of requirements, exceptions, and procedures for protection of confidentiality. Various improvement measures to enhance the confidentiality of communication between lawyers and clients have already been suggested in Korea, and some of the related bills are currently pending in the 21st National Assembly. These existing bills are frequently introduced as an ‘amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act.’ The amendment submitted to the 21st National Assembly, in particular, provides not only for the protection of the confidentiality of communication between lawyers and clients in general, but also for a general ban on the use of evidence obtained in an infringement of confidentiality in the state’s judicial and administrative procedures. It is necessary to examine more closely, however, whether the contents of the amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act are consistent with the legislative purpose and content of the existing Attorney-at-Law Act. A uniform regulation based on a single provision in the Korean Attorney-at-Law Act is not easy to harmonize with the inherent characteristics and legal principles rooted in each procedure while also maintaining the effectiveness of the provision. Furthermore, the amendment simply excludes the use of the evidence at the trial stage, but it does not permit a challenge to the seizure itself. The key to confidentiality, however, is to ensure that confidential matters are not seized by an investigative agency and are not present as evidence at the trial. As a result, the benefits of ensuring the right are limited, and there is still a lack of remedies for infringement of confidentiality. The attorney-client privileges recognized in the United States are fundamentally a privilege under the law of evidence, a concept from the law of evidence. In the case of criminal proceedings, the court decides whether the privilege is protected or not when the other party immediately asserts this privilege against the forcible evidence-gathering act of the investigative agency at the investigation stage. In particular, although the Federal Rules of Evidence govern both criminal and civil cases, when courts decide whether to protect privileges in criminal procedures, there are cases where the unique characteristics of criminal procedures are considered in comparison to general civil cases. In France, a country in the continental law system, in addition to the general provisions of the French Attorney-at-Law Act(Loi n° 71-1130 du 31 décembre 1971) on the guarantee of the professional confidentiality of lawyers(le secret professionel des avocats), the individual provisions under the Criminal Procedure Act(Code de procédure pénale) specifically regulate the professional confidentiality of lawyers. When there is a dispute over whether something should be protected as confidential during a search and seizure by an investigative agency, the seizure is temporarily ceased and the court decides whether to protect it so as to make the investigative agency seize documents and objects not subject to confidentiality. Recently, the French Criminal Procedure Act has been amended to further strengthen this protection. Meanwhile, in Germany, the protection of professional confidentiality in compulsory investigations, including seizure against lawyers, is regulated in several ways through the Criminal Procedure Act as an individual law, separate from the general provisions on confidentiality under the German Attorney-at-Law Act(Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung). Based on the comparative legal review, this study suggests the following legislative improvement measures.  First, considering that it might be more appropriate to regulate this issue under individual procedural law, this study proposes a legislative measure made in the form of an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act instead of the amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act, which has been commonly adopted by bills submitted to the National Assembly. In particular, it is considered that the compulsory submission of evidence in the Korean legal system was primarily related to criminal search and seizure rather than civil procedure, where the general evidence discovery system had not yet been introduced. Second, although criminal seizure against lawyers was often problematic in Korea, the use of Articles 112 and 219 of the current Korean Criminal Procedure Act regarding the right to refuse seizure against a person who relates to the confidentiality of others, including lawyers, was poorly applied. This study proposes an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act to broaden the object of protection by referring to foreign systems. Third, in order to obtain relief from breach of confidentiality, this study proposes the procedure devised to dispute the compulsory seizure of evidence itself before the exclusion of evidence at the trial stage. The procedure to decide whether to be protected by professional confidentiality in the case of a dispute as well as the procedure for exercising the right to refuse seizure were specified in the proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act. This study also suggests grounds for contesting the seizure and search by investigative agencies on the spot, as well as the special provisions of the quasi-appeal that allow the procedures to exclude confidential communication from the search and seizure by the ruling of the court. Fourth, it could be discussed to determine the admissibility of evidence pursuant to Article 308-2 of the Criminal Act at the trial stage in a case where the right to refuse seizure was not exercised at the seizure spot even though the communication with a lawyer could be protected as confidential. With reference to the relevant foreign regulations, this study proposes an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act to include a separate provision regarding admissibility in that case. In criminal proceedings, the seizure of confidential communications between lawyers and clients has been controversial. Of course, this needs to be regulated from the point of view of confidentiality. But in order for the guarantee of confidentiality to be effective, the procedure needs to be designed to block the compulsory seizure and submission of evidence in advance before it is presented as evidence at trial. This study emphasizes that this aspect of procedure assurance is particularly important. As an alternative to or in parallel with the existing discussions conducted in the context of the amendment of the Attorney-at-Law Act, this study is expected to spark several discussions on the revision of individual laws such as the Criminal Procedure Act to enhance the confidentiality of communication between lawyers and clients. Furthermore, it is expected to be used in the future as a useful reference for the interpretation and operation of related systems.

국제상사중재의 비밀유지의무에 관한 연구

박찬동,신창섭 국제거래법학회 2016 國際去來法硏究 Vol.25 No.1

Arbitration proceedings in international commercial arbitration are private and documents which are prepared for the purpose of arbitration as well as the award itself, are assumed to be protected by a duty of confidentiality. However, the private character of the arbitration proceedings has not always implied that the concepts of confidentiality and privacy are identical. Corporate or private contracting parties often enter arbitration agreements without contracting for confidentiality because they expect arbitration to shield their business or personal information and guard it as secret. While arbitration is private in that it is a closed process, it is not necessarily confidential because information revealed during the process may become public. Until the mid 1990s, parties choosing arbitration to resolve their international disputes did not distinguish between confidentiality and privacy. However, after the Australian High Court decision in Esso v Plowman (1995), common law courts have recognized that the privacy of hearings and confidentiality of arbitration could go in separate ways. Nonetheless, there are not much discussions on the two legal notions of confidentiality and privacy among civil law countries including South Korea which lacks law review articles dedicated to the discussion of arbitration confidentiality and familiar arbitration treaties considered it. This article covers in detail the privacy and confidentiality of international commercial arbitration. Firstly, this article explores the distintion between confidentiality and privacy in arbitration and covers the institutional rules whether they generally provide the privacy of arbitral proceedings or broad confidentiality protections. Further, this article identifies the duty of confidentiality implied in fact and in law and studies the way in which confidentiality in international commercial arbitration is addressed with regards to the privacy of arbitral proceedings, discovery or evidence in general of documents produced during or in preparation for an arbitration as well as evidence introduced during the arbitration, and the protection of arbitral awards. 국제상사중재에서 중재당사자는 중재의 비공개성으로 인하여 중재절차에서 알려진 정보와 중재판정이 비밀유지의무의 보호를 받아서 외부에 공개되지 않는다고 잘못된 인식을 갖는 경우가 많다. 기업이나 개인 당사자는 중재합의를 체결하며 종종 별로의 비밀유지조항을 포함시키지 아니하고 중재합의를 체결하고 있는데, 이들은 중재에서 영업비밀이나 개인정보가 비밀로서 보호받는다고 기대하기 때문이다. 그러나 이때 주의할 것은 국제상사중재에서 중재심리는 비공개로 진행되지만, 중재에서 비밀유지는 보장받기 어려우며 중재절차에서 개시된 정보가 외부에 공개될 수 있다는 점이다. 1990년대 중반까지 국제상사중재에서는 중재의 비공개성과 비밀유지의무를 엄격히 구분하지 않았으나, 1995년 호주 대법원의 Esso v Plowman 판례 이후 특히 영미법계 국가를 중심으로 비공개성과 비밀유지의무를 구별하기 시작하였고, 중재의 비밀유지의무에 관한 활발한 논의가 진행되었다. 이에 반해 우리나라를 비롯한 대륙법계 국가에서는 이들 개념의 구분이 정립되어 있지 아니하고, 이 때문에 아직까지 국내에서는 이러한 중재의 비밀유지와 관한 본격적 논의가 부족한 것이 현실이다. 이러한 사정으로 이 논문에서는 영미법계 국가에서 논의되는 바로 그 논의범위를 국한한다. 이 논문에서는 우선 국제상사중재절차의 비공개성과 비밀유지의무의 개념상 차이를 확인하고, 국제중재기관의 중재규칙에서 중재절차의 비공개성과 중재당사자의 비밀유지의무에 관한 규정이 있는지도 함께 검토한다. 다음으로 비밀유지의무의 법적 근거를 계약상 의무와 중재법상 인정되는 의무에 기초하여 검토한 후, 비밀유지의무에 관한 내용을 중재절차에 관한 비공개성, 중재과정에서 이용한 서류와 기타 증거의 공개, 중재판정에 관한 비밀유지의무로 구분하여 각각 알아보기로 한다.

민사소송절차에서 비밀 보호에 관한 연구 - in camera 심리절차를 중심으로 -

박병민 ( Park¸ Byung-min ),이주연 사법정책연구원 2022 연구보고서 Vol.2022 No.2

In order to effectively guarantee the constitutional right to trial, the existence of rights and obligations must be properly contested in litigation, and for this, evidence must be smoothly introduced. However, if the party in possession of the evidence claims it falls under the confidentiality subject to protection against production, such kind of challenge would be prone to the consequential retreat to the insubstantiality of the constitutional right to trial, and thus causing a sense of helplessness in the civil proceedings itself. These consequences would not be limited to concerns. The practice of having an investigative agency collect evidence and submitting it in a civil lawsuit through a criminal complaint ahead of a civil lawsuit, or the so-called ‘expedition lawsuit’ in the United States for the convenience of evidence collection between Korean companies compels us to ask whether our civil trial system is fulfilling its inherent role. The discovery system of the United States is often addressed as a breakthrough to solve the above problems, and there are many studies that advocate the introduction of the system by setting their own scope. This study does not intend to delve into the overall disclosure of evidence, such as the introduction of discovery. On the premise of the envisioned expansion of the disclosure of evidence, the scenes of confidentiality to be reviewed in civil proceedings are divided into the evidence collection stage, such as subpoena to produce documents, the open hearing stage, and the access to court record stage, and the confidentiality protection devices required for each stage are reviewed in this research.  First, in case of the subpoena to produce documents, it is necessary to simplify the structure of the relevant rules and regulations while expanding the subject of production to information. The court needs to proceed case management conference to decide the scope of the production, and strictly examine the reasons for refusal to produce documents. The court should classify the degree of confidentiality in the process of the subpoena to produce documents, and subdivide the scope of access, and permit only lawyers to gain access to the documents when even the highest level of confidentiality shall be subject to submission for litigation interests. So, it is desirable to have a ‘U.S. attorney's eyes only’ system introduced for this purpose. There are no detailed regulations on the in camera proceedings to determine the reason for refusal to submit documents, and this is also the case in major countries such as the United States, Germany, and Japan. This is the reason why the proper case management of the court and the cooperation of both parties are indispensably required for in camera proceedings. Regardless of whether or not to grant the party the right to request for an in camera proceedings, provided that the party requests an in camera proceedings, it is appropriate for the court to initiate the proceedings if possible, and the enactment aiming to give the applicant an opportunity to express his/her opinion under limited conditions shall be taken into consideration. In order to ensure smooth submission of confidential data, it is desirable to incorporate the system for designating the scope of access restrictions and the order to maintain confidentiality provided for in the Patent Act into the Civil Procedure Act. This is because such confidentiality protection is not only a problem in patent infringement cases, but is required in all civil cases such as product liability litigation. In practice, there is some confusion as to whether the protection of privacy or trade secrets can be included in Article 57(1) of the Court Organization Act, which stipulates the grounds for court sealing. Since confidentiality of privacy and trade secrets of companies are also included in the realm of fundamental rights under the Constitution, when the value of confidentiality is deemed to be superior to the principle of public trial, it would be considered that court sealing is possible in accordance with Article 57(1) of the Court Organization Act. Nevertheless, this needs to be clarified by means of legislation as the provisions of the German Court Organization Act. There may be a necessity to exclude the opponent party from attending evidence hearings in the trial in order to protect confidentiality. However, this shall not be possible unless legislation to that effect is enacted as it constrains the procedural right of the party. Lastly, for confidentiality protection, there may arise a question as to whether it is possible to restrict the parties' access to court records, however it also could not be allowed unless there is a legislative basis. Although the relevant system is introduced into legislation, in cases where the need for protection of confidentiality is superior to the guarantee of procedural rights, and where the opinion of the party is seriously considered, the court can grant restrictions on the access of the confidential part. Under this situation, it is recommended that only lawyers have access to the confidential part as much as possible. In civil procedure, the protection of confidentiality cannot be an aim in itself, but constitutes a means for the smooth disclosure of evidence and further, a proper civil litigation. Therefore, besides implementing a good legal system so that the proper civil procedure can be established as a legal culture, we look forward to communications and sincere efforts taken among practitioners who want to breathe life into this system.

불법 행동이나 잠재적 불법 행동에 대한 연구에서 기밀 유지에 대한 법적,윤리적 고려

최은경 ( Eun Kyung Choi ),김도균 ( Do Kyun Kim ),김옥주 ( Ock Joo Kim ) 한국의료윤리학회 2008 한국의료윤리학회지 Vol.11 No.2

Confidentiality has been regarded as one of the most important ethical principles for research on human subjects. Protecting research subjects` confidentiality derives from the principle of respect for persons. As it is essential to maintain trust between researchers and subjects, research on human subjects cannot be conducted without protecting confidentiality, although it is not always easy to do so. Research that involves recording and observing illegal activities, including illegal drug studies, demands an especially high degree of confidentiality. Breach of research confidentiality can result in criminal or civil liability for the subjects in such research. When the researchers are subpoenaed, they are forced to provide information on their subjects. Most countries have no legal framework to protect both subjects and researchers from breaches of confidentiality. This paper discusses the ethical and legal considerations regarding the confidentiality of research on illegal activities. After examining domestic and international cases in which confidentiality and court orders were in conflict, the authors examine relevant policies and legal frameworks, including the Certificate of Confidentiality issued by the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH). The authors argue that legal assurance to protect confidentiality should be provided to research subjects and researchers, especially considering the recent increase in research on illegal activities in Korea.

「변호사비밀유지의무」의 완화 경향에 관한 연구

배기석(Bae Ki-Suk ) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학연구 Vol.51 No.4

1. 통상 변호사 비밀유지 의무에 대한 논의는, 변호사 윤리규칙상의 비밀유지 의무에 대해서만 집중적으로 논의하는 관계로 실체법과 절차법에 규정된 변호사의 비밀유지의무를 보강하는 관련 실정법규정 전체를 포섭하지 못한 경향이 있었다. 따라서 본고에서는 변호사가 의뢰인을 대리하는 과정에 법정에 증인으로 나가 증언대에 서는 경우를 예상하여 관련 실정법과 윤리규정에 맞추어 증언거부권, 문서제출거부권 등을 행사하여 의뢰인을 위한 소송을 대리를 원할 하게 수행할 수 있는지에 대한 문제의식을 갖도록 하는 데 있다. 2. 최근 미국 행정부처의 수사기관 또는 조사기관 들이 업무효율 강화에만 매달려 비밀유지의무의 억제 내지 완화를 노골적으로 요구하면서 전통적 가치에 정면도전 하는 경향을 볼 수 있었다. 결국에는 종래와 같이 원상회복되는 하였으나 이러한 도전은 앞으로도 재연될 가능성이 농후하다. 3. 마지막으로 미국을 위시한 선진제국에서 현안으로 논의되고 있는 FATF 문제는 소위 국제간 불법자금세탁방지 기구인 FATF와 각국 변호사 단체와의 마찰과 갈등이 심화되고 있는바, 이런 경향도 변호사 비밀유지제도의 존립기반을 뒤흔드는 새로운 도전이라고 할 것이다. 4. 비밀유지 의무의 억제 경향이나 비닉특권의 포기 관행, 더 나아가 불법자금세탁방지제도 등, 변호사 업무에 직접적인 제약이 우려되는 비밀유지제도의 수정을 요구 하는 새로운 도전 경향에 대한 문제를 인식하고 나아가 실무적 대응 능력을 배양함으로써 변호사 윤리 인식을 제고하고 함과 동시에 선진 제국에서 논의되는 새로운 규제제도에 대한 이해와 더불어 관련 법조윤리 이론 무장에 일조하고자 한다. Generally, the discussion of lawyer's confidentiality in Korea was mainly about the confidentiality in Code of Ethics. It tends to be debated separatedly from entire confidentiality rules in other substantial law or procedure law. In this article, I would focus on having critical thoughts whether lawyers are able to surrogate the clients by exerting right of refusing to testify or submitting documents in case that lawyers stance as witness in the court. Recently, investigative agencies or fact-finding agencies of US administrations are confronting traditional values by aemending restraint of confidentiality to pursuit efficiency of investigations. Eventually the right of confidentiality was restored though, this confrontation seems to last hereafter. Finally, the issues of FATF such as money laundering, which cause the conflict between FATF and the association of lawyer, shake the foundations of lawyer's confidentiality. This article may contributed to strengthen legal ethics for lawyer's confidentiality by criticizing the recent practices of restraining or waivering the confidentiality. Also, this article may elevate practical ability of lawyer in legal ethics by questioning newly confronting demands of illegal money laundering code which might lead to direct restrains of confidentiality.

콘텐츠산업 진흥법 제36조의 비밀유지의무규정에 대한 문제점과 검토 - 콘텐츠분쟁조정위원회 사례를 중심으로 -

이원재 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 2016 스포츠와 법 Vol.19 No.4

Mediation is a means of ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution). And Confidentiality issue or Privacy protection is big merit of the characteristics of ADR. In Korea, Content Industry Promotion Act provided that “No person who conducts or has conducted affairs related to the mediation of a dispute of the Committee shall divulge confidential information he/she has become aware of in the course of performing his/her duty to any third person or appropriate it for any purpose other than the official purpose: Provided, That this shall not apply where expressly provided for otherwise in any other Acts.”(Article 36 Confidentiality) By the way The Content Dispute Resolution Committee(The CDRC) has provided Facilitation and Mediation process recently. But for the well conducting of confidentiality preservation, the CDRC must notify mutual confidentiality preservation to the parties from Facilitation process. And The CDRC should announce that those who are concerned in mediation process has no recording, no picture and videotape–taking in Mediation place. Also the category of persons whom have Confidentiality preservation obligation is so ambiguous that we need to enlarge the obligation to the 3rd party(mediator) and extra experts. And we should consider new article which provides “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the mediator and the parties shall not introduce as evidence or in any manner whatsoever in any judicial or arbitration proceeding”. There are about 50 or more Administrative Mediation Organizations In Korea but there is no criteria on mediation material keeping term owing to insufficient study on confidentiality preservation. The CDRC’s confidentiality preservation has legal exceptions. They are ACT on Testimony, Appraisal, etc. before the National Assembly, ACT on The Inspection and Investigation of State Administration and ACT on The Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, etc. For the energetic activities of Korea mediation organizations, it is important not only to raise the ability of mediators but also to provide enough physicalㆍlegal system environments for the protection of privacy and business confidentiality. 조정은 소송 외 대안적 분쟁해결(ADR : Alternative Dispute Resolution)의 한 방안이며, ADR 다양한 장점들 중 당사자의 비밀(Confidentiality) 또는 사생활을 보호한다는 것은 매우 큰 장점 중의 하나이다. 콘텐츠산업 진흥법에서도 콘텐츠분쟁조정위원회의 운영에 있어서 조정위원회의 분쟁조정 업무에 종사하는 자 또는 종사하였던 자에게 비밀유지 의무를 준수하게 하고 있는데, 다른 법률에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우를 제외하고는 그 직무상 알게 된 비밀을 타인에게 누설하거나 직무상 목적 외의 목적으로 사용하여서는 아니 된다고 규정하고 있다. 그런데 분쟁조정위원회에서 알선, 조정을 진행하면서 비밀유지 의무를 보다 더 잘 준수하기 위해서는 알선단계부터 당사자들에게 상호 비밀유지에 대한 고지를 할 필요가 있으며 조정회의에 있어서는 녹음, 촬영 등이 금지됨을 고지할 필요가 있다. 또한 비밀유지 준수자의 범위도 기존에 너무 모호하게 되어 있었는데 이를 조정위원 내지 전문위원까지 확대할 필요가 있으며 조정에서 제출한 기록이나 진술은 소송에서 원용하지 못하게 하는 법령의 신규제정도 필요하다. 우리나라는 50개 이상의 행정형 조정기구를 갖고 있지만, 실제 비밀유지에 대한 연구가 상대적으로 부족해서 조정자료 보관기간 등에 대해 일정한 표준이 없는 실정이다. 조정위원회의 비밀유지가 법률적으로 예외가 될 수 있는 부분은 현재 국정감사 등과 관련한 법률과 전자상거래법상에 따른 한계가 있다. 국내 많은 조정기구들이 원활하게 운영되기 위해 조정위원 자질의 역량강화도 중요한 부분이지만, 당사자의 프라이버시와 영업상 기밀을 보호할 수 있도록 충분한 물리적ㆍ제도적 뒷받침을 하는 것이 중요하다.

Research on Communication and Education of Doctor-Patient Relationship

Liu Weiwei(刘,薇薇),Gao Xi(高西) 아시아사회과학학회 2022 International Science Research Vol.2 No.1

确定违反保密规定的习惯和影响,以及医患关系中沟通失误的原因和影响。本文是基于健康传播伦理问题的综合文献综述是在数据库(PubMed 和 Google Scholar)中进行的。关键词为“医疗机密”和“机密泄露”,用于“机密泄露”搜索,以及“沟通失误”搜索中的“医患关系沟通失误”。审查了他们的参考清单,获得并分析了相关的参考清单。违反保密规定的情况屡见不鲜,而且大多数都是偶然发生的。这主要是由医生实施的,严重的保密违规更经常发生,最常见的披露信息是患者的临床和/或个人数据。在对话和数据输入过程中可能会违反保密性。这主要导致医生的职业后果和处罚,以及患者的健康状况较差。沟通失误也可能导致健康状况不佳。有许多因素导致了错误沟通的发生。它可能发生在医务人员、医务人员和患者之间,以及医务人员和患者亲属之间。在大多数国家,违反保密规定和错误沟通是两个主要问题,导致医患关系恶化,造成诸多不利因素,尤其是患者健康状况不佳。虽然有各种原因,但它们的发生往往是由于医生意识的缺乏。应提高保密意识和沟通重要性。 To identify the customary and impacts of confidential breach as well as miscommunication causes and impacts in doctor-patient relationship. This comprehensive literature review on ethical issues of health communication was performed in databases (PubMed and Google Scholar). All English-language relevant articles with keywords “medical confidentiality” and “confidentiality breach” for “confidentiality breach” search and “miscommunication in doctor patient relationship” in “miscommunication” search were analyzed. Their reference lists were reviewed and the relevant ones were obtained and analyzed. Confidentiality breaches happen commonly and most of them are accidental. It is mostly committed by doctors and severe confidentiality breaches occur more often with the most common disclosed information is patients’ clinical and/or personal data. Breaching confidentiality can happen during conversation and data entry. It results mainly in professional consequences and sanctions for the doctors, as well as poorer health outcomes of the patients. Poor health outcomes can also be resulted from miscommunication. There are numerous factors grounding the occurrences of miscommunication. It can happen between medical professionals, medical professionals and patients, and medical professionals and patients’ relatives. Confidentiality breach and miscommunication are two major issues in most countries which result in poor doctor-patient relationship that cause numerous disadvantages, particularly poor patients’ health outcome. Although there are various reasons, they usually happen due to awareness lack of the doctors. Awareness of confidentiality and communication importance should be improved.

국제상사중재에서 중재판정의 기밀성에 관한 연구

유병욱(Byoung-yook Yu) 한국국제상학회 2011 國際商學 Vol.26 No.4

In the arbitration parties in international commercial business assume that the private nature of the process. Many parties prefer to arbitration as a dispute resolution process to secure privacy an confidentiality. A number of arbitration courts around the world have considered the confidentiality in arbitration. However the assumption of confidentiality may not always be valid. Many countries in relation with arbitration courts have the unstable debating options over the principle of confidentiality in domestic and international arbitration. Some institutional courts in international arbitration such as ICSID have release the arbitrational awards in respect of arbitration rule of ICSID. However most of the arbitration awards in the arbitral courts are not released contents of awards if not to be agreed all parties related in arbitration. In the other part, some court may reveals the awards of arbitration on the purpose of academic or statistical needs as to be restricted or hid the parties’ identity or edited the content of awards. Even though arbitral rules of domestic or international and institutional arbitral courts have different provisions of arbitral confidentiality of arbitral awards or decisions in arbitration proceedings. In this article we could consider the problems and alternatives of regulation and provisions in arbitration rules around the world including KCAB rules. So as to this article we may recognize and face up with the international trace in the launch argument of revisable confidential provision of arbitration rule in domestic and international arbitral jurisdictions.