행정사법인을 합명회사로만 설립할 수 있게 규정한 현행 「행정사법」의 비판적 검토 - 「행정사법」 제25조의13 제2항을 바탕으로 -

In order to respond to the increase in complex and diverse administrative demands, provide professional administrative services, and enhance the credibility of administrative services, administrative law firms that were permitted to be established in June 2021 can only be established in the form of general partnerships with unlimited liability. Accordingly, Article 25-13, Paragraph 2 of the current Administrative Attorney Act, which stipulates that administrative law firms can only be established as general partnerships, significantly violates the freedom of enterprise (business) among the freedom of administrative firms to practice their profession under Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the freedom of association under Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the same Act, and the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness based on the right to equality under Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the same Act. In order for administrative attorneys to achieve public welfare, such as the people's administrative convenience and the development of the administrative system, the current administrative law firms system needs to be reformed. It is necessary to change the way of thinking that putting the shackles of unlimited liability on administrative attorneys is not for the public welfare, but rather allowing administrative attorneys to establish administrative law firms as partnerships by choosing between limited and unlimited liability is for the public welfare. If administrative law firms are established as limited partnerships, the property rights and damages claims of clients can be more thoroughly protected, and the credibility of administrative law firms can be secured, thereby increasing the number of administrative law firms and increasing the profits of administrative law firms. In addition, the administrative law system and the administrative system can be developed together by increasing the administrative convenience of the people. Accordingly, this paper will examine Article 25-13, Paragraph 2 of the current Administrative Attorneys Act, which is the basis for establishing administrative law firms only as general partnerships, and suggest improvement measures. To this end, we will examine whether Article 25-13, Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Attorney Act violates the freedom of occupational choice under Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (II.), whether Article 25-13, Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Attorney Act violates the freedom of association under Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (III.), and whether Article 25-13, Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Attorney Act violates the right to equality under Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (IV.), and conclude (V.).