Journal of the Korean Society for information Management (정보관리학회지)

Korean Society for Information Management (한국정보관리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Application of Predictive Coding Tool for Enterprise E-Discovery

기업의 전자증거개시 대응을 위한 예측 부호화(Predictive Coding) 도구 적용 방안

  • 유준상 (명지대학교 기록정보과학전문대학원 기록관리전공) ;
  • 임진희 (명지대학교 기록정보과학전문대학원)
  • Received : 2016.11.20
  • Accepted : 2016.12.10
  • Published : 2016.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As the domestic companies which have made inroads into foreign markets have more lawsuits, these companies' demands for responding to E-Discovery are also increasing. E-Discovery, derived from Anglo-American law, is the system to find electronic evidences related to lawsuits among scattered electronic data within limited time, to review them as evidences, and to submit them. It is not difficult to find, select, review, and submit evidences within limited time given the reality that the domestic companies do not manage their records even though lots of electronic records are produced everyday. To reduce items to be reviewed and proceed the process efficiently is one of the most important tasks to win a lawsuit. The Predictive Coding is a computer assisted review instrument used in reviewing process of E-Discovery, which is to help companies review their own electronic data using mechanical learning. Predictive Coding is more efficient than the previous computer assister review tools and has a merit to select electronic data related to lawsuit. Through companies' selection of efficient computer assisted review instrument and continuous records management, it is expected that time and cost for reviewing will be saved. Therefore, in for companies to respond to E-Discovery, it is required to seek the most effective method through introduction of the professional Predictive Coding solution and Business records management with consideration of time and cost.

해외에 진출한 국내기업의 소송 사례가 증가하면서 기업들의 전자증거개시제도의 대응에 대한 요구가 증가하고 있다. 영미법에서 유래된 제도인 전자증거개시제도는 절차 진행과정에서 여러 곳에 산재해 있는 전자적 정보들을 중 제한된 시간 내에 소송과 관련된 전자적 정보들을 찾아 증거자료로 검토하여 제출하는 제도이다. 이는 하루에도 수많은 전자기록이 생산되는 국내기업들의 기록관리가 잘 이루어지지 않고 있는 현실에서 제한된 시간 이내에 증거자료를 추리고 검토하여 제출하는 것은 쉽지 않은 일이다. 검토대상을 줄이고 검토과정을 효율적으로 진행하는 것은 소송에서 승소를 위한 가장 중요한 과제 중 하나이다. Predictive Coding은 전자증거개시 검토 과정에서 사용되는 도구로써 기계학습을 이용하여 기업들이 보유하고 있는 전자적 정보들의 검토를 도와주는 도구이다. Predictive Coding이 기존의 검색도구보다 효율성이 높고 잠재적으로 소송과 관련된 전자적 정보를 추려내는데 강점이 있다고 판단된다. 기업의 효율적인 검색도구의 선택과 지속적인 기록관리를 통해 검토비용의 시간적, 비용적 절감을 꾀할 수 있을 것으로 예상된다. 따라서 기업은 전자증거개시 제도에 대응하기 위해서 시간과 비용적 측면을 고려한 전문적인 Predictive Coding 솔루션의 도입과 기업 기록관리를 통해 가장 효과적인 방법을 모색해야 할 것이다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 명지대학교

References

  1. 김도훈 (2014). 미국 전자증거개시절차상 증거검색 및 수집방법에 관한 연구. 강원법학, 41(1), 217-252.(Kim, Do Hoon (2014). A study on the search and information retrieval methods in the U.S. E-discovery - Focusing on the technology-assisted review. Kangwon Law Review, 41(1), 217-252.)
  2. 김승범 (2015). 기록관리의 기회와 위협요인으로서의 전자증거개시(E-Discovery)제도 연구. 석사학위논문, 명지대학교 기록정보과학대학원, 기록관리전공.(Kim, Seungbum (2015). An analysis on E-Discovery system as opportunities and threats for record management. Master's thesis, Graduate School of Records, Archives & Information Science of Myongji University, Department of Records and Archival Information Management.)
  3. 김영수, 홍도원 (2011a). E-Discovery 대상 ESI의 컬링 성능 향상을 위한 핵심 기술. 한국통신학회 학술대회논문집, 650-651.(Kim, Youngsoo, & Hong, Dowon (2011a). Core technologies for advancing curling performances of ESI concerning e-Discovery. Proceedings of Symposium of the Korean Institute of Communications and Information Sciences, 650-651.)
  4. 김영수, 홍도원 (2011b). E-Discovery 프로젝트: EDRM과 Sedona Conference. 주간기술동향, 1509, 14-27.(Kim, Youngsoo, & Hong, Dowon (2011b). E-Discovery project: EDRM and Sedona Conference. Weekly Technology Trends, 1509, 14-27.)
  5. 김일아 (2016). 전자증거개시(E-Discovery)에 대응하는 미국 기업의 기록관리 동향 분석. 석사학위논문, 명지대학교 기록정보과학대학원, 기록관리전공.(Kim, Il-a (2016). The trends analysis on the American business records management responding to E-Discovery. Master's thesis, Graduate School of Records, Archives & Information Science of Myongji University, Department of Records and Archival Information Management.)
  6. 김종호 (2015). 세도나 캐나다 원칙상 전자증거개시제도의 준비에 관한 실무상의 문제점. 법학연구, 59, 147-183.(Kim, Jongho (2015). Some practical issues in the preparing for E-Discovery under the Sedona Canada Principles addressing electronic discovery. Law Review, 59, 147-183.)
  7. 안정혜 (2010). 국제중재에서의 전자증거개시. 중재연구, 20(2), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.16998/jas.2010.20.2.67(Ahn, Jeong-Hye (2010). Electronic discovery in international arbitration - Focusing on the establishment of rules regarding electronic discovery. Journal of Arbitration Studies, 20(2), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.16998/jas.2010.20.2.67)
  8. 이태림, 신상욱 (2012). 기업의 효과적인 소송 대응을 위한 전자증거개시 절차 모델과 대체 기술. 디지털융복합연구, 10(8), 287-297.(Lee, Tae-Rim, & Shin, Sang-uk (2012). E-Discovery process model and alternative technologies for an effective litigation response of the company. The Journal of Digital Policy & Management, 10(8), 287-297.) https://doi.org/10.14400/JDPM.2012.10.8.287
  9. 전복만, 박지훈 (2012). 지식재산분쟁에서 중재제도 활성화를 위한 전자증거개시제도의 정비. 과학기술법연구, 18(3), 267-402.(Jun, Bokman, & Park, Juhoon (2012). A study on maintenance of the E-Discovery for intellectual property disputes in the arbitration. Institute for Law of Science & Technology, 18(3), 267-402.)
  10. 천우성, 박대우 (2011). e-Discovery 시스템 설계와 관리를 위한 인증과 암호화. 한국컴퓨터정보학회 학술발표논문집, 19(2), 139-142.(Chun, Woo-Sung, & Park, Dea-Woo (2011). Design of emergency response e-Discovery systems using encryption and authentication. Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference, 19(2), 139-142.)
  11. 채은선 (2008). 디지털포렌식을 통한 E-Discovery의 실용화에 관한 연구. 석사학위논문, 동국대학교 대학원, 정보보호학과.(Chae, Eun-Sun (2008). A study on the practical use of E-Discovery through digital forensics. Master's thesis, Graduate School of Dongguk University, Department of Information Protection.)
  12. 탁희성 (2011). 전자증거개시제도(E-Discovery)에 관한 연구. 서울: 한국형사정책연구원.(Tak, Heesung (2011). A study on E-Discovery. Seoul: Korean Institute of Criminology.)
  13. Acosta, A. M. (2012). Predictive coding: the beginning of a new e-discovery era. Res Gestae, 56, 8.
  14. An ARMA International Publication (2012, November/December). Making 'predictive coding' pay needs cooperation. Information Management, 8.
  15. An ARMA International Publication (2013, March/April). Predictive coding to become an ethical obligation. Information Management, 12.
  16. An ARMA International Publication (2014, May/June). Predictive coding: Not just for E-Discovery. Information Management, 17.
  17. Debra, L. (2008). Using the electronic discovery reference model to process, review and analyze digital evidence. Gartner Research. ID:G00159094
  18. EDPB 공식홈페이지. Retrieved from http://www.edbp.com
  19. EDRM 공식홈페이지. Retrieved from http://www.edrm.net
  20. Schoenecker, E. Jr. (2015, April 4). Nine cases on predictive coding from modus. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nine-cases-predictive-coding-from-modus-edward-schoenecker
  21. E-Discovery Team (2008). Thoughts on SEARCH and Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. Retrieved from https://e-discoveryteam.com/2008/06/08/hundredth-blog-thoughts-on-search-and-victor-stanley-inc-v-creative-pipe-inc/
  22. E-Discovery Team (2013). My basic plan for document reviews: The "Bottom Line Driven" approach. Retrieved from https://e-discoveryteam.com/2013/10/01/my-basic-plan-for-document-reviews-the-bottom-line-driven-approach/
  23. Issacs, L. (2013). Rolling the dice with predictive coding leveraging analytics technology for information governance. The Information Management Journal, 47(1), 23-26.
  24. Volinino, L., & Redpath, I. (2009). E-Discovery for dummies. New Jersey: Wiley.
  25. Pace, N. M., & Zakaras, L. (2012). Where the money goes: Understanding litigant expenditures for producing electronic discovery. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
  26. Swartz, N. (2006). New rules for E-Discovery. Information Management, 22-26.
  27. Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership, et al., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 143 T.C. No. 9 (Sept. 17, 2014)
  28. EORHB, Inc., et al. v. HOA Holdings, LLC, C.A. No. 7409-VCL (Del. Ch. Oct. 15, 2012).
  29. In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Product Liability Litigation, No. 611-md-2299 (W.D. La. July 27, 2012)
  30. In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:12-MD-2391 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2013)
  31. Moore v. Publicis Groupe SA, 2012 WL 1446534(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2012).
  32. No. 11 Civ. 1279(ALC)(AJP), 2012 WL 607412, at *3(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012).
  33. Rio Tinto PLC v. Vale, S.A., et al., No. 1:14-cv-03042-RMB-AJP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2015)