개항기 平壤의 개시과정과 開市場의 공간적 성격 = The Process of Opening of Inland Market and the Nature of Mixed Residence in Pyeongyang of the Open Port Period

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Argument of opening Pyeongyang's market was brought up as a preparation plan of the third clause of Sino-Korean Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade. This clause allowed Chinese' fishing and landing, which draw Chinese fishermen to smuggle at the port illegally. 'Interior' means the inland area outside the boundary of the open port, so both cannot connect directly. However smuggling at the port intermediates the inland area, therefore the boundary of 'ocean' and 'interior' bordered and defining the boundary became an issue. Every attempt to open Pyeongyang's market before the Sino-Japanese War has failed. This means opening Daidong River's port has failed and controling the smuggling has also failed. So foreign vessels plyed freely to the inland ports, as ports became the 'ocean in the interior'.
Under this circumstance, the 'interior' became a problem more than the boundary of 'ocean' and 'interior'. After the Sino-Japanese War, especially after 1898, Japan took the lead of the argument about opening Pyeongyang's market and this discussion interrelated with dismantling the mixed residence in the interior. Joseon Government claimed that Pyeongyang was an inland area originally so the foreigners should vacate. Under the treaty system, mixed residence was only allowed less than ten ri(里) distance beyond the foreign settlement. As foreign countries wanted to maintain Pyeongyang's particular situation, they touted the 'less than ten ri(里) distance beyond the foreign settlement' rule to justify it. However the ideal model was always Hansung, which the entire city was opened to mixed residence without setting up a foreign settlement. Even the duty at the foreign settlement was a burden to them.
As foreign envoys notified unilaterally, Pyeongyang became the second Hansung. Applying the 'less than ten ri(里) distance beyond the foreign settlement' to mixed-residence quarter was a very significant case, because it could possibly refer to any district in Joseon if mixed residence phenomenon arises. And the inland area was already showing the signs of mixed residence. This can be a remarkable source to examine the interior policy of Office of the Resident-general in Korea. The office of the Resident-general in Korea applied Pyeongyang's case to other districts. Colonization was progressing by extending the 'less than ten ri(里) distance beyond the foreign settlement' rule to the ‘interior’, not by expanding the foreign settlement.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 權錫奉, "李善得의 派日과 淸側 介入-特히 濟州漁採永罷交涉을 中心으로" (8) : 1970

2 최덕수, "조약으로 본 한국근대사" 열린책들 34-35, 2010

3 "매일신문"

4 "독립신문"

5 박준형, "개항기 漢城의 開市와 잡거문제 - 한성개잔 및 철잔 교섭을 중심으로 -" 서울특별시사편찬위원회 (82) : 179-212, 2012

6 "黃海道關草"

7 孫禎睦, "韓國開港期 都市變化過程硏究" 一志社 1982

8 李鉉淙, "韓國開港場硏究" 一潮閣 1975

9 金容旭, "韓國開港史" 瑞文堂 1976

10 "雜件二"

11 "關係史料"

12 高秉雲, "近代朝鮮租界史の硏究" 雄山閣出版 1987

13 "舊韓國外交文書"

14 大山梓, "舊條約下に於ける開市開港の硏究" 鳳書房 3-4, 1967

15 김대호, "淸日戰爭 後 朝鮮의 平安道 通商開放과 外勢의 干涉" 서울대학교 대학원 2012

16 O. N. Denny, "東北アジア文獻硏究叢刊4 淸韓論" 成文社 65-66, 2010

17 奧平武彦, "朝鮮の條約港と居留地, In 京城帝大法學會論集(9) 朝鮮社會法制史硏究" 岩波書店 1937

18 "日本外交文書"

19 "平安道關草"

20 岡本隆司, "屬國と自主のあいだー近代淸韓關係と東アジアの命運ー" 名古屋大學出版會 2004

21 "各部指令存案"

22 박준형, "‘잡거’의 역사, 한국화교와 이웃하기" 국학연구원 (161) : 77-118, 2013

23 "The Independent"

24 "New Treaty Ports"