17~18세기 漢城府內 軍兵의 家垈 지급과 借入의 실태

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Borrowing by the government policy in the 16th century became a common housing type of farmers coming into the city in the 17th century. The housing supply method of the military, a class of farmers coming into the city received Gongdae(public sites) including Mohwagwan(慕華館) and Taepyoongwan(太平館) from their unit such as Hunryun-dogam(訓鍊都監) or Au Young Chung(御營廳). Therefore, their dwelling sites were prepared collectively through Gongdae(公垈) borrowing, differently from other farmers coming into the city. This finally became the cause of formation of regional dwelling sites in the Hanseongbu. The soldiers who came up to the city in the 17th century resided by borrowing private sites(personal Gadae) besides the national Gongdae. However, since the private-site borrowing could be sued easily, differently from Gongdae borrowing, it was on shaky ground where they could lose their place of residence. Borrowers who leased private sites had to receive an Iban(立案) thoroughly because they could lose the right of the leased land without the Iban when they were sued for Gadae(家垈). With poor housing conditions, borrowers were in the unstable situation where the leased land could be taken away as an aspect of pillaging by a powerful or loyal family in Hanseongbu with the owner residing in the provinces. In particular, in case of private-site borrowing differently from Gongdae borrowing, there were many cases of legal action so that borrowers had to clearly recognize and confirm if the land was owned by and who was its owner. As to the period of lease, Gongdae borrowing was almost permanent while privatesite borrowing was flexible except that the owner went down into the country. Also, borrowers paid a certain amount to their owner as taxes. While paying in a lump-sum like a today’s deposit money, they paid once a year as seen through a case that they paid taxes yearly. The government’s protection measures about such borrowers didn’t appear in the late Joseon Dynasty. A borrower or a tenant only got a tax refund when the owner’s house had a trouble, which turned out that their property right was under protection to some extent. The method to secure the residence right about borrowing could not but receive the government’s Iban stating the dwelling period or conditions of borrowing. However, even in this case the borrower had to clearly recognize details of Gadae to lease, the location of resident households, and its ownership since when both litigant parties received the Iban, the party who first issued the Iban could win a lawsuit.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 머리말
• II. 16세기 漢城府 주거형태의 특징
• III. 漢城府內 軍兵의 家垈 지급과 주거 양상
• 1. 군병의 漢城府 유입과 실태
• 2. 군병의 家垈 지급과 借入
• IV. 가옥소송을 통해 본 漢城府 軍兵 借入者의 실태
• V. 맺음말
• 참고문헌
• ABSTRACT

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 조성윤, "조선후기 서울 주민의 신분구조와 그 변화-근대 시민 형성의 역사적 기원" 연세대 1992

2 김종수, "조선후기 訓鍊都監의 설립과 운영" 서울대 1996

3 양진석, "조선후기 漢城府 中部 長通坊 丁萬石契 소재 가옥의 매매와 그 특징" 규장각한국학연구원 (32) : 33-61, 2008

4 홍석주, "조선중기 인경궁 건설의 도시구조상 의미에 관한 연구" 30 (30): 2005

5 임학성, "조선 후기 漢城府民의 戶籍자료에 보이는 ‘時入’의 성격 -漢城府 주민의 住居 양상을 究明하기 위한 一試論-" 한국고문서학회 24 : 309-341, 2004

6 박경안, "선초 가대(家代)의 절급에 관하여" 한국역사연구회 (69) : 225-254, 2008

7 "訓局謄錄"

8 "續大典"

9 "經國大典"

10 "秋曹決獄錄"

11 "朝鮮王朝實錄"

12 孫禎睦, "朝鮮時代都市社會硏究" 일지사 1977

13 "日省錄"

14 "承政院日記"

15 "御營廳謄錄"

16 "古文書集成-海南尹氏篇影印本 3" 한국정신문화연구원 1986

17 "古文書 7" 서울대학교규장각 1991

18 "備邊司謄錄"

19 이상식, "18세기 서울 유학의 정치적 성격" 58 : 1998

20 유승희, "18~19세기 漢城府 經濟犯罪의 실태와 특징-死罪를 중심으로-" 서울학연구소 (31) : 127-165, 2008

21 이근호, "17~18세기 閭家奪入 을 통해 본 한성부의 주택문제" 3 : 2004

22 유승희, "15∼16세기 漢城府의 주택 문제와 정부의 대응" 한국사학회 (94) : 37-76, 2009