An Empirical Study on Structural Changes in the Korean Legal System: Focusing on Korean Bar Examination Subject

Abstract

본 연구는 제3대부터 제22대 국회까지 약 70년간의 입법 데이터를 분석하여 전통적인 법영역 간 경계가 실제로 흐려지고 있는지를 실증적으로 검증하였다. 자연어 처리와 네트워크 분석을 활용하여 키워드 중복도, 의미적 유사도, 인용 네트워크 중첩도를 측정한 결과, 공법과 민·형사법, 그리고 민법과 형법 간의 경계가 시간에 따라 실질적으로 약화되고 있음이 확인되었다. 한국 법체계는 세 단계로 진화했다. 명확한 영역 구분의 안정화 시기(제3-10대), 민주화와 함께 급격한 융합이 진행된 시기(제11-16대), 그리고 융합된 법리 위에서 새로운 전문 영역들이 분화하는 시기(제17대 이후)를 거쳤다. 특히 민법과 형법 간 인용 네트워크 중첩도는 1980년대 후반부터 1990년대 후반 사이 6배 증가하며 급격한 구조적 변화를 보였다. 본 연구는 로마법 이래의 공법-사법 이원론이 현대 법체계의 실제 작동을 설명하는 데 한계가 있음을 정량적으로 입증하였으며, 법학 교육과 이론이 현대법의 융합적 특성을 반영하여 재구성되어야 한다는 실증적 근거를 제공한다.|This study empirically investigates whether the boundaries between traditional legal domains are blurring in the Republic of Korea's legal system through quantitative analysis of approximately 70 years of legislative data from the 3rd to the 22nd National Assembly (1954-2025). Employing natural language processing techniques and network analysis, this research examines boundary changes between public law and civil-criminal law, as well as between civil law and criminal law, using three complementary indicators: keyword overlap, semantic similarity, and citation network overlap. The analysis of 80 statutes selected based on the Korean Bar Examination subject system reveals substantial convergence trends across multiple dimensions. Between public law and civil-criminal law, all three indicators show increases over time, demonstrating gradual but continuous convergence. The relationship between civil law and criminal law exhibits more dramatic transformation, with particularly pronounced structural changes evidenced by a six-fold increase in citation network overlap during the late 1980s to late 1990s. While some indicators show strong statistical significance, others display consistent positive trends, collectively supporting the convergence hypothesis. The findings identify a three-stage evolutionary pattern in the Korean legal system: (1) a stabilization period (3rd-10th National Assembly) characterized by clear domain boundaries, (2) a rapid convergence period (11th-16th National Assembly) marked by intensive integration coinciding with democratization, and (3) a professional differentiation period (after 17th National Assembly) where specialized domains develop on a foundation of converged jurisprudence while surface-level terminology diversifies. These results empirically demonstrate that the traditional public law-private law dichotomy, fundamental to legal theory since Roman law, has significant limitations in explaining the actual operation of modern legal systems. The study contributes methodologically by presenting a reproducible quantitative framework for measuring legal domain boundaries and theoretically by providing empirical evidence for restructuring legal education and theory to reflect the convergent characteristics of contemporary law.