본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

사내변호사의 법적 지위의 특수성

The Legal Status of the In-House Counsel

김홍엽
법학연구원 (Legal Research Institute of Korea University)|2012.12|성균관법학 (SungKyunKwan Law Review)|제24권 제4호|pp. 95-118|DOI 10.17008/skklr.2012.24.4.004

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

비밀유지의무사내변호사기업변호사직업윤리professional ethics비밀유지특권준법통제attorney-client privilegeregulatory compliance직무행위고발후 사직의무문지기책임in-house counselcorporate lawyerthe duty to the confidential informationprofessional conductduty to noisy withdrawalgatekeeper liability
주제분류법학

초록

Under the law school system in Korea, an exploding number of lawyers have practiced year and year to the extent that the existing conventional law market can hardly afford to absorb them. Against this backdrop the lawyers have come to turn their eyes on the in-house counsel arena deemed to be relatively at the incipient of its growth. Despite this unprecedented situation relevant laws as well as rules have yet to exist to apply to and regulate on the in-house counsels in Korea. The only regulation actually regarding the in-house counsels in the relating law in Korea is the Attorney Act, Article 38 which stipulates both the prohibition and the limited permission of lawyer's employment in the governmental or the corporate bodies. In this context the controversies surrounding the in-house counsels have as matter of factly been subject to the authoritative interpretations of Korean Bar Association. In this vein the problems regarding the attorney's obligation to keep the client's confidential informations and the attorney and client privilege have yet to be resolved in Korea by way of regulations or the court's precedents. This study has mainly focused on whether the in-house counsel has a duty to the confidential informations, and the client as well as the in-house counsel has the privilege thereon. In addition this study has noted whether the in-house counsel has the obligation to report the wrongful acts of the management to the relevant outside authorities even in the absence of the current regulations to mandate the in-house counsel's noisy withdrawal.

Abstract

Under the law school system in Korea, an exploding number of lawyers have practiced year and year to the extent that the existing conventional law market can hardly afford to absorb them. Against this backdrop the lawyers have come to turn their eyes on the in-house counsel arena deemed to be relatively at the incipient of its growth. Despite this unprecedented situation relevant laws as well as rules have yet to exist to apply to and regulate on the in-house counsels in Korea. The only regulation actually regarding the in-house counsels in the relating law in Korea is the Attorney Act, Article 38 which stipulates both the prohibition and the limited permission of lawyer's employment in the governmental or the corporate bodies. In this context the controversies surrounding the in-house counsels have as matter of factly been subject to the authoritative interpretations of Korean Bar Association. In this vein the problems regarding the attorney's obligation to keep the client's confidential informations and the attorney and client privilege have yet to be resolved in Korea by way of regulations or the court's precedents. This study has mainly focused on whether the in-house counsel has a duty to the confidential informations, and the client as well as the in-house counsel has the privilege thereon. In addition this study has noted whether the in-house counsel has the obligation to report the wrongful acts of the management to the relevant outside authorities even in the absence of the current regulations to mandate the in-house counsel's noisy withdrawal.

참고문헌 (47)

  1. 김병수, "변호사의 비밀유지의무와 진실의무", 법학연구, 48(2), pp.353~377 (2008), 법학연구소
  3. 이종상, "사내변호사 활성화 방안", 법률신문 제3678호(2008. 9. 1.), ~ (2008)
  4. 오욱환, "변호사선발제도, 더 늦기 전에 정비해 야 한다", 법률신문 제4059호(2012. 8. 27.), 12~ (2012)
  5. "법률신문 제4061호(2012. 9. 6.), 6쪽", 6~ (2012)
  6. "법률신문 제4056호(2012. 8. 16.)", 7~ (2012)
  7. "법률신문 제4076호(2012. 11. 1.)", 1~ (2012)
  8. 정선주, "사내변호사의 지위와 증언거부권", 인권과 정의, (420), pp.79~92 (2011), 대한변호사협회
  9. 사내변호사 활성화를 위한 연구, "최승재", 대한변호사협회, 55~ (2012)
  10. John Dzienkowski, "Evolving Issues for Corporate Lawyers and In-House Counsel", University of Texas School of Law, pp.3~4 (2003)
  11. 김건식, "기업변호사의 역할과 윤리", pp.282~ (2003), 서울대학교 법과대학편
  12. 최승재, "사내변호사 활성화를 위한 제언", 법률신문 제4073호(2012. 10. 22.), 11~ (2012)
  13. John Dzienkowski, "Evolving Issues for CorporateLawyers and In-House Counsel", University of Texas School of Law, pp.3~4 (2003)
  14. 견해로는, "기업변호사의 역할과 윤리", pp.282~ (2003), 서울대학교 법과대학
  15. 이재협, "사내변호사와 법치주의 - 한국의 기업법무부서에 대한 경험적 고찰 -", 인권과 정의, (400)통권 : 400, pp.43~73 (2009), 대한변호사협회
  16. 배기석, "기업법무 변호사의 윤리", 법학연구, 48(2), pp.379~409 (2008), 법학연구소
  17. 최준선, "기업의 부정과 기업의 사회적 책임", 성균관법학, 20(3), pp.871~891 (2008), 법학연구소
  18. 한철, "기업의 사회적 책임(CSR)과 기업지배구조", 상사판례연구, 22(3), pp.313~338 (2009), 한국상사판례학회
  21. 박선종, "개정상법상 준법통제와 준법지원인", 저스티스, (124), pp.233~261 (2011), 한국법학원
  22. 권성연, "준법지원인제도의 현재와 미래", 저스티스, (127), pp.80~104 (2011), 한국법학원
  23. 김재윤, "준법지원인제도의 도입에 따른 형사법적 인센티브", 인권과 정의, (425), pp.87~105 (2012), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
  24. 오영준, "변호사가상법 제5조 제1항에서 정한 의제상인에 해당하는지 여부 등", 대법원판례해설, (71), pp.437~ (2007)
  25. 최승재, "사내변호사의 법적 지위와 변호사법 제34조 제4항", 법률신문 제3653호(2008. 9. 22.), ~ (2008)
  26. 정인진, "변호사의 비밀유지의무", 저스티스, 48(104), pp.136~162 (2008), 한국법학원
  27. 정형근, "변호사 직무의 공공성", 한양법학, (30), pp.195~221 (2010), 한양법학회
  28. 정선주, "사내변호사의 지위와 증언거부권", 인권과 정의, (420), pp.79~92 (2011), 대한변호사협회
  29. Ursula H. Weigold, "The Attorney-Client Privilege as An Obstacle to the Professional and Ethical Development of Law Students", PEPP. L. REV, 33, pp.701~ (2006)
  30. "Lois Sportswear, USA., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 104 F.R.D. 103, 105(S.D.N.Y. 1985)", ~
  31. 신동운, "변호사의 증언거부권과 형소법 제314조-법무법인 의견서 사건", 신형사소송법, (2), pp.361~
  32. Grace M. Giesel, "The Legal Advice Requirement of the Attorney-Client Privilege: A SpecialProblem for In-House Counsel and Outside Attorneys Representing Corporations", MERCER L.REV, 48(347), pp.1182~ (2007)
  33. Amber Stevens, Comment, "An Analysis of the Troubling Issues Surrounding In-House Counseland th Attorney-Client Privilege", HAMLINE L. Rev, 23(305) (1999)
  34. Andrew R. Taggert, "Parent-Subsidiary Communications and the Attorney-Client Privilege", U.CHI. L. REV, 65(315), pp.319~ (1998)
  35. 정규상, "문서제출의무 -일본에서 자기이용문서성인정에 관한 판례를 중심으로-", 민사소송, 13(1), pp.250~282 (2009), 한국민사소송법학회
  36. 김홍엽, "민사소송법 제3판", pp.605~ (2012), 도서출판 박영사
  37. 김정연, "기업 변호사의 문지기 책임에 관한 고찰", 서울대학교 법학, 52(3), pp.541~593 (2011), 법학연구소
  38. Peter C. Kostant, "From Lapdog to Watchdog: Sarbanes-Oxley Section 307 and a New Role for Corporate Lawyers", New York Law School Law Review, 152, pp.544~545 (2007)
  39. 오성근, "미국의 회계(제도)개혁법상 증권변호사에대한 규제와 시사점", 인권과 정의, (381), pp.86~110 (2008), 대한변호사협회
  40. 배기석, "기업법무 변호사의 윤리", 법학연구, 48(2), pp.379~409 (2008), 법학연구소
  41. 이상수, "미국 법규상 기업 내 위법행위와 기업변호사 윤리 그리고 그 함의", 서울대학교 법학, 49(4), pp.604~646 (2008), 법학연구소
  42. 일본변호사연합회, "解說 辯護士職務基本規程", 自由와 正義, 통권 : 56, pp.86~
  43. 배기석, "기업법무 변호사의 윤리", 법학연구, 48(2), pp.379~409 (2008), 법학연구소
  44. "법률신문 제3601호(2007. 11. 12.)", 3~ (2007)
  45. "법률신문 제3601호(2007. 11. 12", 12~ (2007)
  46. "대한변협신문 제199호(2007. 12. 3.), 5쪽", 5~ (2007)
  47. 김병수, "변호사의 비밀유지의무와 진실의무", 법학연구, 48(2), pp.353~377 (2008), 법학연구소

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (15건)

유럽연합의 개인정보보호 집행체계에 관한 연구김일환, 홍석한pp. 1-28사회변화와 헌법변화 - 그 시론적 연구 -정재황pp. 29-62차기 정부 KBS거버넌스에 관한 쟁점 및 바람직한 입법방안지성우pp. 63-93제3자에 의한 채권침해의 입법화 방안김현선pp. 119-151부동산 유치권의 대항력제한에서 불법점유를 원인으로 하는 유치권 성립제한으로의 재전환서종희pp. 153-188
원문 보기