법관평가에 대한 비교법적 고찰

Abstract

With the advent of law school, The Law of Court Organization in relation to judicial personnel administration was revised. This revision raised the retirement age of judge up to 65,along with the selection of unitary system of lawyer. In addition, Supreme court partially carried out high court judicial personnel administration based on the assumption of duality of high court and district court. These changes would increase the age of beginning judges and would allow judges to hold judgeship until retirement age if they has qualification for retention. And also, in the past, the judge’s efficiency rating was to be focused on the selection of district court presiding judges to be promoted while the rating later on would be focused on the distinction of judges to be disqualified. Additionally Korean Bar Association and district bar associations in attempt to make judicial performance evaluation led by lawyers keep claiming that result should be reflected on judicial personnel administration. In addition, past, the provision of The Law of Court Organization asked judicial personnel administration to reflect optionally the result of judge’s efficiency rating. However, the provision of The Law of Court Organization is reformed to evaluate attitude besides work performance and to let judicial personnel administration reflect the result of the evaluation if necessary. At this point, I compare the cases of US, UK, Germany and Japan, to examine the desirable direction of judge’s efficiency rating and feasibility of judicial performance evaluation led by lawyers keep claiming that result should be reflected on judicial personnel administration.