사법접근권 보장과 리걸테크 규율체계의 정립

초록

Digital transformation is demanding fundamental changes to the traditional structure of legal services and the operation of judicial procedures. The constitutional guarantees of the right to trial and access to justice extend beyond the mere assurance of formal procedures and include securing accessibility and usability that enable the effective realization of substantive rights. However, in the Korean legal market, the effectiveness of access to justice remains insufficiently guaranteed due to information asymmetry, high cost structures, and limited understanding of legal procedures. As a result, approximately 70% of civil cases on the merits proceed without legal representation. Amid these structural issues, legal tech has emerged as a means to substantially enhance judicial accessibility through technological support functions such as automated document drafting, information provision, procedural assistance, and evidence organization. Nevertheless, the legal status and permissible scope of legal tech remain unstable due to conflicts between bar associations and platform companies, ambiguity in the concept of “legal services” under the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the broad scope of prohibitions applied to non‑lawyers. Recently, courts have provided direction for the regulatory framework by presenting a functional standard: technology‑based services such as automated drafting and information provision do not constitute the exclusive professional domain of lawyers so long as they do not involve legal judgment on individual cases. Germany has structurally opened the out‑of‑court legal services market through the Legal Services Act (RDG) and has expanded institutional acceptance of legal tech through case law and supplementary legislation. Japan, through the interpretation of Article 72 of the Attorney Act and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Justice, has adopted a functional approach to defining the permissible scope of technical and standardized services. Based on comparative legal analysis and recent domestic case law trends, this study argues that the core of a legal tech regulatory framework should lie in distinguishing the exclusive domain of lawyers from the domain of technological assistance according to functional and risk-based criteria. It proposes legislative directions such as the gradual opening of out‑of‑court legal services, a regulatory approach based on responsibility and oversight, the establishment of consumer protection mechanisms, and the introduction of regulatory sandboxes. The study emphasizes that the regulation of legal tech is not a matter of occupational conflict but a rule‑of‑law task aimed at achieving a balanced realization of access to justice and the public nature and professionalism of legal services.

키워드