역민식(役民式) 제정 이후의 호등제도와 요역 = The Household Class System and Corvée Labor after the Enactment of the Rules on Corvée Labor(Yeokminsik)

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In previous studies on corvée labor (Yoyeok, 徭役), the household class (Hodeung, ⼾等) system has generally been considered to have been abolished after the enactment of the rules on corvée labor (Yeokminsik, 役民式) in 1471, or to have been applied only in a limited scope to local labor obligations.
However, this study interprets the labor mobilization system of early Joseon as a unified structure in which the rules on corvée labor were implemented through the household class system.
This interpretation is supported by the 1501 memorial submitted by Seong-Hyeon (成俔) and Go-Hyeongsan (⾼荊⼭) regarding labor mobilization for fortification works in the northern regions. According to their memorial, the number of laborers conscripted was calculated based on household grades: large households (Daeho, ⼤⼾) provided 45 workers, medium households (Jungho, 中⼾) 23, and small households (Soho, ⼩⼾) 1 worker, based on unit standards of eight or ten taxable land units (Gyeol, 結) of cultivated land.
In other words, these unit-area standards were implemented via the household class system, which applied the standardized per-land-unit labor quota prescribed by the rules on corvée labor to each household’s assessed landholding.
Thus, depending on how the labor units were structured, multiple households could be combined to provide one laborer, or a single large household could be required to provide up to five workers. However, in practice, laborers were not conscripted strictly based on the precise landholding size. Administrative discretion was exercised to meet fiscal needs —allowing for additional conscription even if a household’s land was slightly insufficient, or reduced burden even when surplus land existed. This flexibility reflects the fact that corvée labor targeted the human labor available within the household, not the produce of the land, which underscores the critical role of local magistrates in tax and labor administration.
Furthermore, the reason why labor mobilization was carried out via the household class system rather than strictly organizing eight taxable land units as stipulated by the rules on corvée labor lies in the settlement patterns of the outer provinces. These areas were typically characterized by dispersed settlements, making it difficult to physically organize labor units based on exact land units. Especially in small rural villages with limited farmland, forming eight taxable land units would have been practically impossible in many regions. Therefore, applying the existing household grade system to determine labor obligations was more efficient in preserving administrative capacity.
In conclusion, the household class system remained in operation in the provinces even after the enactment of the rules on corvée labor, which did not replace or abolish it, but rather functioned on top of it. The significance of the rules on corvée labor lies not in its introduction of an "objective standard" for labor mobilization based solely on cultivated land, but rather in its role within the tax framework of the Land-Tax Assessment Law (Gongbeop, 貢法), where the labor value of one adult male was equated to the cultivation of eight taxable land units.