변호사는 기본적 인권의 옹호와 사회정의의 실현을 사명으로 하는 법률전문직이다. 변호사법은 변호사의 공공적 사명과 지위를 명시하여 그 공익적 성격을 강조하고 있고, 법원도 변호사의 상호등기신청과 관련하여 상인성을 부정하는 판결을 일관되게 유지하면서 그 근거로 변호사법 소정의 공공성과 공익적 규정을 들고 있다. 그러나 이러한 법원의 입장은 변호사업무의 현실적 실태를 고려하지 않은 형식적 법논리의 결과이다.
오늘날 변호사는 그 직무활동이 상업적 성격을 짙게 띠고 있고, 유상의 위임계약을 통하여 사실상 영리를 목적으로 그 직무를 수행하고 있는 점에서 그 영업성을 전적으로 부정할 수 없다. 실제로 변호사는 영업에 적합한 상인적 설비를 갖추고 수임업무를 주된 업으로 하고 있고, 법무법인은 규모의 대형화와 함께 기업수준의 조직과 활동을 통해 영리추구에 나서고 있어 회사기업과 유사한 점이 많다. 결국 변호사는 업무의 공공성과 사적 직업성의 양면적 지위를 가지고 있으며, 어느 쪽을 중시하느냐에 따라 그 지위나 역할이 달라진다. 이와 관련하여 변호사가 어떤 일을 하는 직업이며, 전통적 학설과 판례가 상인성을 부정하는 근거로 들고 있는 변호사업무의 공공성의 대상이 무엇인지를 재검토해 볼 필요가 있다.
변호사는 의뢰인으로부터 법률사무 등을 위임받아 그 사무를 처리하는 것을 ‘업’으로 하는 전문직업인이다. 그러나 수임사무의 처리를 위한 변호사의 활동내용과 변호사와 의뢰인 사이의 수임사무 위임관계는 별개이다. 후자의 업무는 변호사와 의뢰인 사이의 사무처리 위임계약, 즉 변호사 선임계약이며, 그 내용이 사회질서에 반하지 않는 한 공공성과 무관하다. 변호사의 업무, 즉 수임사무에는 민사적 법률관계와 형사 및 행정영역의 법률관계가 포함되나, 변호사선임계약 그 자체는 수임사무의 내용에 관계없이 사적인 위임계약이기 때문이다.
이처럼 위임사무의 수임을 업으로 하는 변호사는 사적 직업인이며, 유상성과 영리성을 전제로 상인성이 인정될 수 있다.
변호사의 상인성이 인정되면 변호사 업무관계에 상법이 적용된다. 그러나 그 주된 적용대상은 실질적인 상인성이 인정되는 변호사선임계약의 법률관계에서이며, 상법규정도 그 범위 내에서 제한적으로 적용될 것이다. 따라서 적용가능한 상법규정의 구체적인 범위를 검토할 필요가 있다.
The attorney as a legal profession should protects human rights and realize social justice. The attorney law emphasizes the public interest to state a commission and status of attorneys. The court preserves the decision to deny the attorney as merchant, according to attorney law prescribing the attorney to protect the public benefit. However, the court never face the actual conditions of the attorney's business. The practice of the attorney have become commercialized in recent years, as well as the attorney performs its duties on business through the contracts paid. In fact, the attorney gets the system for business to perform the duties, furthermore, the law firm enlarge the scale of the organization such as corporation. Therefore, the attorney has the character both for the public interest and the business, so as taking the public benefit or the business, each of them is evaluated differently. It is need to consider what is the target of public benefit in the attorney. The attorney as specialized job accepts cases requested by the clients. Activities of the attorneys for attending to them and the relationship about mandate between the attorney and client are separate. The latter is about the contract for mandate of accepting the case between the attorney and client not on public interest but on business. If the case is criminal or administrative, it'll be related with the public. On the other side, if the attorney accept the civil case, it could be related with the public or not. The attorney's fee agreement itself is private civil contract, though in any cases, it would have the character as merchant premised on commerciality and reward. When acknowledging the character as merchant of the attorney, the practice of the attorney should be subject to commercial law. It couldn't subject to all of the duties of the attorney on account of the public, though. It's need to review subjecting the provisions of the Commercial Code, which can be avoided or applied. This paper is a study of the both sides in which the attorney has the legal status on comparative methodology and a review about the theories and precedents what is the character as merchant of the attorney, and a range of applying the Commercial Code when it is accepted.
The attorney as a legal profession should protects human rights and realize social justice. The attorney law emphasizes the public interest to state a commission and status of attorneys. The court preserves the decision to deny the attorney as merchant, according to attorney law prescribing the attorney to protect the public benefit. However, the court never face the actual conditions of the attorney's business. The practice of the attorney have become commercialized in recent years, as well as the attorney performs its duties on business through the contracts paid. In fact, the attorney gets the system for business to perform the duties, furthermore, the law firm enlarge the scale of the organization such as corporation. Therefore, the attorney has the character both for the public interest and the business, so as taking the public benefit or the business, each of them is evaluated differently. It is need to consider what is the target of public benefit in the attorney. The attorney as specialized job accepts cases requested by the clients. Activities of the attorneys for attending to them and the relationship about mandate between the attorney and client are separate. The latter is about the contract for mandate of accepting the case between the attorney and client not on public interest but on business. If the case is criminal or administrative, it'll be related with the public. On the other side, if the attorney accept the civil case, it could be related with the public or not. The attorney's fee agreement itself is private civil contract, though in any cases, it would have the character as merchant premised on commerciality and reward. When acknowledging the character as merchant of the attorney, the practice of the attorney should be subject to commercial law. It couldn't subject to all of the duties of the attorney on account of the public, though. It's need to review subjecting the provisions of the Commercial Code, which can be avoided or applied. This paper is a study of the both sides in which the attorney has the legal status on comparative methodology and a review about the theories and precedents what is the character as merchant of the attorney, and a range of applying the Commercial Code when it is accepted.
