기후공시와 탄소회계 데이터에 대한 법적 연구

This article examines the legal design of climate-related disclosure with a focus on carbon accounting data as a core informational input in capital-market governance. Korea is moving toward mandatory climate disclosure aligned with ISSB-type standards, yet major implementation frictions remain: (i) limited access to Scope 3 (value-chain) data and resulting contractual/cost disputes, (ii) wide variation in estimation and uncertainty treatment that undermines comparability, (iii) gaps in assurance-market governance (independence, competence, and oversight), and (iv) escalating risks of greenwashing, inadequate disclosure, and litigation. These challenges transform the policy question of “what to disclose” into a legal question of how to architect data controls and accountability. Carbon accounting data is not merely an emissions figure. It is a multi-layered dataset encompassing scope classification, boundary setting, the selection of activity data and emission factors, CO₂e conversion, assumptions and estimations, uncertainty management, and the disclosure of targets and offsetting plans (including carbon credits). Accordingly, the central legal issue is not the pursuit of a single “correct number,” but the institutional design of norms that secure auditability and evidentiary traceability—how such data is produced, recorded, changed, verified, and attributed within a disclosure regime. After outlining the diffusion of international standards and major jurisdictions’ approaches, the article analyzes the normative status of carbon data at the intersection of (i) disclosure information aimed at investor decision-usefulness and (ii) regulatory information serving public-policy objectives, emphasizing that the same dataset may operate under multiple normative purposes and thus requires coherent linkages among duty design, supervision, sanctions, and liability. The article further argues that the effectiveness of carbon disclosure depends on embedding reliability mechanisms into law: allocating responsibilities across the board, management, and operational teams; legally operationalizing internal controls and data governance (evidence retention, access control, logging/versioning); and structuring third-party assurance in a phased manner, including a staged approach to Scope 3 (e.g., a three-year transitional deferral scenario) coupled with a concrete registration and oversight framework for assurance providers. Finally, it addresses cross-cutting disputes involving forward-looking and estimated information (including conditional safe-harbor design), greenwashing, value-chain data tensions, and the reconciliation of disclosure with trade-secret protection, and it considers how the legal characterization of carbon data may affect burdens of proof in future climate litigation. The article concludes by proposing an internationally aligned, staged implementation strategy for Korea and by emphasizing that a sound carbon disclosure regime depends less on expanding itemization than on ensuring accountability, evidentiary traceability, and proportionate enforcement.