한·일 양국의 지방 기록물 관리제도 비교 연구와 발전방향

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

At present, Korea's Archives management system has not been balanced development of central and local areas since the law was enacted in 1999. This is a natural result in the reality of our country which developed from the center from the old days. However, if such an imbalanced development continues, it will be difficult to achieve balanced and sustainable development in the future.
On the other hand, in Japan, since the 1950s, archives have been established in each region, and now more than half of the prefectures are established. The local archives are relatively advanced, preserving archives as well as many archives prior to modern times. They serve as regional cultural centers and utilize the archives for various purposes. For this reason, it is considered to be worthy to study the local archives management institutions in Japan. In this study, the direction of the development of local archives management in Korea is presented through comparative analysis of the local archives management between Korea and Japan.
I chose the Kagawa Prefectural Archives and the Tottori Prefectural Archives as the local archives in Japan to compare it with the Kyongnam Archives. The reason for this is that the archives management is conducted on the basis of the official archives mangement ordinance established by the local community, and it is thought that there will be a merit different from the archives of other regions.
The first is the aspect of the local archives management system. Korea's archives management method is 'distributed management' and it is managed by several public records management institutions and private records management institutions, centered on the National Archives, a central archives management institution. The local archives management institution is Kyongnam Archives.
Japan also manages records with 'decentralized management' and manages archives in public archives management institutions including the National Archives of Records, a central records management agency, and several private records management institutions. Local archives management institutions are located in 37 out of 47 prefectures.
In Korea, a record center is installed in each public institution, and records management is carried out in accordance with the Life Cycle Theory. In Japan, there is a system for transferring records to the archives, but there is no law that there should be an record center for each public institution.
However, the problem of the Korean archives management system is the archives management of the records of the public institutions that are currently active. In other words, the management of the archives collected by the private sector compared to the management of the public records is not done well. On the other hand, the Japanese records management organization prescribes that it manages a specific history document and the archives to be managed include the records transferred from the administrative institution and the records collected from individuals and organizations. Some of the collected records include historical documents such as archives.
The second is the aspect of the local records management law. The problem with Korea's archives management law is that the scope of the law is limited to the records produced by public agencies that are currently in operation. The part of the collection also stipulates the collection of private records, but the method and object of clear collection are not specified, and the principle of rearrangement of archives is also not stipulated.
On the other hand, Japan's archives management law and archives management ordinance are similar to Korea's archives management law in that they are the objects that are currently collected from public organizations and individuals and organizations. However, unlike Korea, Japan clearly distinguishes between record management and archives management.
Third, it is the aspect of local archives management. First, it is the difference in the collection and preservation of archives. The records preserved by permanent records management institutions such as South Korea's Gyeongnam Archives have a retention period of 30 years, semi-permanent, and permanent. Kagawa Prefectural Archives and Tottori Prefectural Archives, on the other hand, preserves documents with a preservation period of 10 years and 30 years mainly in each archives. And, the Kagawa Prefectural Archives will preserve at the archives until the expiration date of the records. In other words, the Kagawa Prefectural Archives manages records.
In addition, the Kagawa Prefectural Archives preserves records from administrative agencies and archives from individuals and organizations. Meanwhile, the Tottori Prefectural Archives established the details of donation and deposit of historical documents.
It is the difference in utilization of records. Although the Gyeongnam Archives preserves archives and provides them with access to local residents through reading, exhibitions, the two local institutions in Japan conduct research on records as well as manage records. Through this, local history is compiled and the local people are provided through lectures on deciphering historical documents. The Tottori Prefectural Archives and Records Office also plays a role as the central record management institution of Tottori Prefecture and works to coordinate and cooperate with municipalities and residents.
Therefore, the development direction of local archives management institutions in Korea was suggested as development of archives collection organization, development of role as local archives management, historical and cultural center. First, in order to develop in the first direction, a system should be prepared for collecting according to the characteristics of each region. It is suggested that a management method different from public record management is needed and a department and manpower that can professionally handle collected historical records are required.
The development in the second direction should also cooperate with professional provision and technical advice on the preservation and use of archives, while planning alliances with individuals or organizations that hold historical records such as the Tottori Prefectural Archives in Japan. And it is necessary to strategically utilize the historical records preserved by each local record management organization. Strategic utilization is research and research related to the tasks such as the collection, preservation, utilization, and dissemination of historical records, and historical records research.
Although the records management system is difficult to obtain clear results or developments in a short period of time, the record management is still important, yet there is little recognition and attention. However, as the current system continues to be maintained, it will be difficult to expect the development of records management in Korea. Therefore, in this paper, it is meaningful to suggest Korea 's development direction in comparison with the advanced management of local records in the local records management in Korea.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제 1장 서론 1
• 제 1절 연구배경 1
• 제 2절 선행연구 검토 4
• 제 3절 연구의 범위와 방법 7
• 제 2장 이론적 배경 9
• 제 1절 기록물 관리제도의 형성과정 9
• 제 2절 지방 기록물과 관리의 개념 28
• 제 3장 한․일 양국의 지방 기록물 관리제도 및 현황 32
• 제 1절 한․일 지방 기록물 관리제도와 기관 현황 32
• 제 2절 한․일 양국의 지방 기록물 관리 현황 41
• 제 4장 한․일 지방기록물 관리제도의 비교 분석과 발전방향 73
• 제 1절 지방 기록물 관리제도 비교분석 73
• 제 2절 지방 기록물 관리업무 비교분석 81
• 제 3절 한국의 발전방향 83
• 제 5장 결론 87
• 참고문헌 91
• 부록 1. 「경상남도 기록원 설치 및 운영에 관한 조례」 95
• 부록 2. 「香川県公文書等の管理に関する条例(카가와현 공문서 등의 관리에 관한 조례)」 97
• 부록 3. 「鳥取県公文書等の管理に関する条例(돗토리현 공문서 등의 관리에 관한 조례)」 109
• Abstract 120