RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      독일 법조윤리규범의 실태와 시사점 -변호사윤리를 중심으로- = The status quo of German rules of Legal profession and its implication for South Korea - with focus on the Legal ethics

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A86946564

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      With the recent exponential increase in the number of lawyers and concomitant expansion of the market, South Korea legal system is to encounter unprecedented problems and issues. In other words, the past paradigm of our legal ethics is not developed enough to systematically and logically resolve neither present nor future ethical conflicts in the law. Germany possesses legal system similar to South Korea - only with far more extensive history. It has been consistently reviewed and modified to resolve issues raised as Germany underwent significant economic development and reunification, and joined the European Union. Suffice it to say, German legal system is far more detailed and specific than South Korea`s. While two nations` legal system are quite similar, there are much difference in several areas, namely, the overall structure of rules of legal profession; legal case acceptance; attorney fee structure; advertisement regulation; and attorney disciplinary regulation. Comparing the differences allowed us to discover the extent of shortcomings in the layout of South Korea rules of legal profession, and that advertisement regulations are either too ambiguous or too specified to function as positive regulation, which was the original intent. In regard to attorney fee structure, differences were particularly evident in the standard of legal fee computation and contingency fee. Lastly, two systems showed differences in procedures of disciplinary action for violating the rules of legal profession. Based on our study, we suggest a few modifications in the following four areas of South Korea legal system: the structure of regulations within the rules of legal profession, advertisement regulation, attorney fee regulation, and disciplinary regulation. Although it is imperative to review and revise the rules of legal profession to meet the needs of rapidly changing legal market, it is equally important to create a fair and just legal culture considering that a series of corruptions involving judicial officials have led to the public`s incredulity toward lawyers` ethics. Such legal culture will require reawakening of ethical conscience from lawyers as well as individual citizens.
      번역하기

      With the recent exponential increase in the number of lawyers and concomitant expansion of the market, South Korea legal system is to encounter unprecedented problems and issues. In other words, the past paradigm of our legal ethics is not developed e...

      With the recent exponential increase in the number of lawyers and concomitant expansion of the market, South Korea legal system is to encounter unprecedented problems and issues. In other words, the past paradigm of our legal ethics is not developed enough to systematically and logically resolve neither present nor future ethical conflicts in the law. Germany possesses legal system similar to South Korea - only with far more extensive history. It has been consistently reviewed and modified to resolve issues raised as Germany underwent significant economic development and reunification, and joined the European Union. Suffice it to say, German legal system is far more detailed and specific than South Korea`s. While two nations` legal system are quite similar, there are much difference in several areas, namely, the overall structure of rules of legal profession; legal case acceptance; attorney fee structure; advertisement regulation; and attorney disciplinary regulation. Comparing the differences allowed us to discover the extent of shortcomings in the layout of South Korea rules of legal profession, and that advertisement regulations are either too ambiguous or too specified to function as positive regulation, which was the original intent. In regard to attorney fee structure, differences were particularly evident in the standard of legal fee computation and contingency fee. Lastly, two systems showed differences in procedures of disciplinary action for violating the rules of legal profession. Based on our study, we suggest a few modifications in the following four areas of South Korea legal system: the structure of regulations within the rules of legal profession, advertisement regulation, attorney fee regulation, and disciplinary regulation. Although it is imperative to review and revise the rules of legal profession to meet the needs of rapidly changing legal market, it is equally important to create a fair and just legal culture considering that a series of corruptions involving judicial officials have led to the public`s incredulity toward lawyers` ethics. Such legal culture will require reawakening of ethical conscience from lawyers as well as individual citizens.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 오승종, "회사변호사의 윤리, in: 아산재단 연구총서 제155집" 집문당 2004

      2 이상돈, "한국에서의 법조윤리와 변호사의 책임" 중앙법학회 8 (8): 7-32, 2006

      3 오종근, "변호사징계제도, in: 아산재단 연구총서 제11집" 집문당 2002

      4 신동일, "변호사 수임비리 해결을 위한 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 2005

      5 이상수, "법조윤리의 이론과 실제" 서강대학교 출판부 2009

      6 사법연수원, "법조윤리론" 사법연수원 2009

      7 박휴상, "법조윤리" 도서출판 fides 2010

      8 한인섭, "법조윤리" 박영사 2010

      9 김성언, "법조비리에 관한 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 1999

      10 "독일연방변호사회 홈페이지"

      1 오승종, "회사변호사의 윤리, in: 아산재단 연구총서 제155집" 집문당 2004

      2 이상돈, "한국에서의 법조윤리와 변호사의 책임" 중앙법학회 8 (8): 7-32, 2006

      3 오종근, "변호사징계제도, in: 아산재단 연구총서 제11집" 집문당 2002

      4 신동일, "변호사 수임비리 해결을 위한 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 2005

      5 이상수, "법조윤리의 이론과 실제" 서강대학교 출판부 2009

      6 사법연수원, "법조윤리론" 사법연수원 2009

      7 박휴상, "법조윤리" 도서출판 fides 2010

      8 한인섭, "법조윤리" 박영사 2010

      9 김성언, "법조비리에 관한 연구" 한국형사정책연구원 1999

      10 "독일연방변호사회 홈페이지"

      11 이청조, "독일변호사의 성공보수규제에 관한 법리" 12 : 2001

      12 "독일 법무부 홈페이지"

      13 "Römermann/Hartung, Anwaltliches Berufsrecht, 2. Aufl., 2008, C. H. Beck"

      14 "Pieroth/Schlink, Grundrechte-Staatsrecht II, 25. Aufl., 2009, Hüthig-Jehle-Rehm"

      15 "Norbert Schneider, Änderungen im anwaltlichen Vergütungsrecht zum 1. 1. 2007, NJW"

      16 "Koch/Kilian, Anwaltliches Berufsrecht, 2007, Beck Juristischer Verlag"

      17 "Kai von Lewinski, Grunriss des Anwaltlichen Berufsrechts, 2. Aufl., 2008, Nomos"

      18 "Hanns Prütting, 20 Jahre anwaltliches Berufsrecht in Deutschland, AnwBl"

      19 "Gerold/Schmidt, Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, 18. Auflage, 2008, C. H. Beck"

      20 "Feulich/Weyland, Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung Kommentar, 6. Auflage, 2003, Verlag Franz Vahlen"

      21 "Ekkehart Reinelt, Entwicklungen im anwaltlichen Berufsrecht und Singularzulassung beim BGH, ZAP"

      22 "Büchting/Heussen, Becksches Rechtsanwalts-Handbuch 2006/2007, 9. Aufl., Beck Juristischer Verlag"

      23 "Anja Steinbeck, Werbung von Rechtsanwälte im Internet, NJW"

      24 "Anette Baumann, Advokaten und Prokuratoren, 2006, Verlag Böhlau"

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-06-25 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> Korea Law Review KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 FAIL (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2006-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 1.42 1.42 1.11
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      1.14 1.05 1.166 0.89
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼