국내 경쟁법 절차에 비밀유지권 도입 검토 - 일본의 제도를 중심으로 -
A Study on the Introduction of the Legal Professional Privilege in Competition Law Procedures: Focused on the procedure of Japan
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article mainly focused on explaining the details of the Legal Professional Privilege(“LPP”), which is recently introduced in the competition law procedure of Japan, and looking at the implications that should be considered when the LPP is introduced in South Korea. The new LPP system in Japan has a similar form to the EU competition law with respect to its content and procedures. Although the scope of the LPP is limited to cases related to cartels, the introduction of the LPP is important since Japan was one of the few countries where the LPP was not recognized. The Supreme Court of South Korea explicitly denied the LPP in 2012, but there is ample need for the exchange of legal communication between an attorney and client to be recognized as a secret as part of the right to defend in the competition law procedure in Korea. After the introduction of LPP in Japan, South Korea become the only OECD member country that denies the LPP in competition law. Thus, it is necessary to recognize the LPP in the competition law enforcement system as soon as possible. Regarding the specifics of the LPP, the discussion could be based on the content of the LPP system in the EU and Japan.
Abstract
This article mainly focused on explaining the details of the Legal Professional Privilege(“LPP”), which is recently introduced in the competition law procedure of Japan, and looking at the implications that should be considered when the LPP is introduced in South Korea. The new LPP system in Japan has a similar form to the EU competition law with respect to its content and procedures. Although the scope of the LPP is limited to cases related to cartels, the introduction of the LPP is important since Japan was one of the few countries where the LPP was not recognized. The Supreme Court of South Korea explicitly denied the LPP in 2012, but there is ample need for the exchange of legal communication between an attorney and client to be recognized as a secret as part of the right to defend in the competition law procedure in Korea. After the introduction of LPP in Japan, South Korea become the only OECD member country that denies the LPP in competition law. Thus, it is necessary to recognize the LPP in the competition law enforcement system as soon as possible. Regarding the specifics of the LPP, the discussion could be based on the content of the LPP system in the EU and Japan.
참고문헌 (17)
- 김우진, "변호인 작성의 법률의견서의 증거능력", 형사판례연구, 21, pp.487~524 (2013), 한국형사판례연구회[DOI]
- 김현귀, "헌법이론과 실무" (2018), 헌법재판연구원
- 남수진, "변호사-의뢰인 비닉특권의 도입 요구에 앞서― 미국의 제도와 경험의 시사점 ―", 서울법학, 26(2), pp.487~520 (2018), 서울시립대학교 법학연구소[DOI]
- ｢압수․수색 절차의 개선방안에 관한 연구, "대법원 사법정책연구원", 사법정책연구원, ~, pp.연구총서 2016-07 (2016)
- 박용철, "변호사가 의뢰인에게 작성해 준 의견서가 압수된 경우 그 의견서의 증거능력 - 대법원 2012. 5. 17. 2009도6788 판결 -", 형사법연구, 24(2), pp.335~362 (2012), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- 문재완, "변호인의 조력을 받을 권리와 법률자문의 보호", 인권과 정의, (335), pp.77~97 (2004), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- 손창완, "변호사․의뢰인 간 비밀 의사교환의 보호 - 비닉권의 인정가능성 및 관련 법률의 해석 -", 법학논총, 32(2), pp.9~47 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 윤성운, "변호사", 의뢰인 특권제도에 대한 연구, 2016, pp.(6), ~[DOI]
- 이재경, "K-IFRS 회개학원론" (2013), 박영사
- 장철준, "헌법상 변호인의 조력을 받을 권리와 의뢰인의 비밀보장", 헌법학연구, 23(1), pp.1~37 (2017), 한국헌법학회
- Alison Jones, "EU Competition Law Text, Cases, and Materials" (2019), Oxford University Press
- Renato Nazzini, "Competitioni Enforcement and Procedure" (2016), Oxford University Press
- "Commission notice on best practices for the conduct of proceedings concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (2011", C308, pp.2011, ~
- "ICN Recommended Practices for Investigative Process", ICN, ~ (2018)
- "ICN Guiding Principles for Procedural Fairness in Competition Agency Enforcement", ICN, ~ (2018)
- 弁護士と依頼者の通信秘密保護制度に関する最終報告, "日本弁護士連合会 弁護士と依頼者の通信秘密保護制度に関するワーキンググループ", ~ (2016)
- 田村陽子, "弁護士の職務上の秘匿特権と通信秘密をめぐる比較法的考察", 筑波ロー․ジャーナル, 27 (2019)