새로운 법조양성시스템인 법학전문대학원 (이하 “로스쿨”이라 한다)체제 하에서 제1회 변호사시험이 2012. 1. 3.부터 1. 7.까지 치러졌고, 1,451명이 합격하여 로스쿨에 의한 새로운 법률가 양성의 시대의 막이 열렸다. 변호사시험과 로스쿨교육은 밀접 불가분의 관계에 있으며, 변호사시험을 도외시하고 독자적인 로스쿨의 교육은 불가능하므로, 변호사시험의 출제는 로스쿨의 교육과정을 바람직하게 운영하는데 지장이 없도록 할 필요가 있다. 변호사시험 공법기록형시험의 바람직한 출제의 방향은 로스쿨의 교과과정을 적절히 반영하면서 나아가 법률가로서 활동하기 위한 기본적 법학지식과 더불어 법적 분석능력과 법적 추론 능력 등 문제해결 능력을 측정할 수 있는 내용이 되어야 한다. 기본적으로 변호사시험은 지엽적인 문제를 가급적 지양하고, 중요한 문제의 패턴을 반복하여 출제할 수도 있으며, 아울러 기본적이면서 중요한 이론과 판례를 소재로 하여 출제하는 것이 바람직한 출제의 방향이라고 할 수 있다. 이러한 관점에 비추어 제1회 변호사시험 공법기록형 시험은 수험생들의 예측가능성을 높이고 법무부가 제시한 출제의 기본적인 방향과 출제방침을 신뢰하고 준비해 온 수험생의 관점에서 큰 틀을 허물지 않고 존중되는 방향에서 출제된 것이라고 말할 수 있다. 앞으로 변호사시험 공법 기록형 문제는 행정소송의 경우 소장, 답변서, 준비서면, 집행정지신청서, 의견서 등 필수적인 서식에 한정될 것으로 예상되며, 헌법소송에서 기록형이 나오는 경우에도 위헌법률심판제청신청서, 헌법소원심판청구서, 의견서 등이 우선적으로 고려될 수 있다. 향후 변호사시험 공법기록형 문제의 출제방향은 기록형과 사례형이 크게 구별되지 아니하는 헌법분야에 한정하여 기록형 문제를 출제하기 보다는, 제1회 변호사시험 공법 기록형시험과 같은 맥락에서 행정소장의 작성을 주축으로 하면서 헌법적 쟁점을 묻는 형태로 기록형 시험문제를 통합형으로 출제하는 것이 예측가능성을 확보하면서 변호사로서 갖추어야 할 실무처리능력을 검증한다는 점에서 바람직하다

The first bar- examination under the new system of specialized graduate school of law (hereinafter referred to as “law school”) was taken from January 3 to January 7, 2012. 1,451 persons passed this examination. A new era of training lawyers at law schools was opened. There are close non-separable relations between the examination for the bar and instructions at law schools. It is impossible for law schools to give independent instructions without any thought of the examination for the bar. Accordingly, questions for the examination for the bar are required to be given so as to help law schools operate their curricula. Description type public law questions for the examination for the bar are desired to be given so as to properly reflect law schools' curricula and test fundamental jurisprudence and measure capabilities of analysis, inference, problem solution and so on. To this end, it is considered desirable to preferably refrain from unessential questions, give essential questions even repeatedly and deal with important theories and precedents. In this aspect, the description type public law questions for the first examination for the bar are told to enhance examinees' foreseeability and comply with their expectations and preparations for the examination and studies at law schools in reliance on questioning directions and basic policies for law schools of the Ministry of Justice. In future, among public laws, description type questions of administrative litigation are expected to be limited to essential documents such as petition, defense, preparatory documents, application for suspension of execution, written opinion, etc., and description type questions of constitutional appeal are expected to focus on application for adjudication on constitutionality of law, application for adjudication on constitutional appeal, written opinion, etc. Alone in the field of the Constitution where description and precedent types are not greatly separable, description type questions are not always desirable, but the integration type focusing on preparation of petition and describing constitutional disputes is recommended for testing examinee's foreseeability and working capabilities.

The first bar- examination under the new system of specialized graduate school of law (hereinafter referred to as “law school”) was taken from January 3 to January 7, 2012. 1,451 persons passed this examination. A new era of training lawyers at law schools was opened. There are close non-separable relations between the examination for the bar and instructions at law schools. It is impossible for law schools to give independent instructions without any thought of the examination for the bar. Accordingly, questions for the examination for the bar are required to be given so as to help law schools operate their curricula. Description type public law questions for the examination for the bar are desired to be given so as to properly reflect law schools' curricula and test fundamental jurisprudence and measure capabilities of analysis, inference, problem solution and so on. To this end, it is considered desirable to preferably refrain from unessential questions, give essential questions even repeatedly and deal with important theories and precedents. In this aspect, the description type public law questions for the first examination for the bar are told to enhance examinees' foreseeability and comply with their expectations and preparations for the examination and studies at law schools in reliance on questioning directions and basic policies for law schools of the Ministry of Justice. In future, among public laws, description type questions of administrative litigation are expected to be limited to essential documents such as petition, defense, preparatory documents, application for suspension of execution, written opinion, etc., and description type questions of constitutional appeal are expected to focus on application for adjudication on constitutionality of law, application for adjudication on constitutional appeal, written opinion, etc. Alone in the field of the Constitution where description and precedent types are not greatly separable, description type questions are not always desirable, but the integration type focusing on preparation of petition and describing constitutional disputes is recommended for testing examinee's foreseeability and working capabilities.

Law school, Lawyer, Bar-Examination, Description type public law questions, Integration type public law questions, administrative litigation