식민지 조선에서의 `소작` 개념의 정치 = The Conceptual Politics of Kosaku(Sojak) in Colonial Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The practice of agricultural policies by the colonial power in the late Chosun Dynasty began by forcibly implanting the idea of “tenancy” which was created in Japan during the Meiji period, and within this category, they engaged with the classification, investigation, and inscription of the existent Korean customs. Within this process, the idea of “tenancy” replaced traditional Chosun`s unique land lease system, “homogenizing” the land lease customs altogether. The rights of the farmers which were similar to shared ownership, even though it had been expanding in the traditional society, were rejected and deprived by the legislative and investigative practices by the colonial state. Within the framework of “tenancy” reinforced by the colonizer, these rights were degraded down to simple obligatory land-lease or long-term tenancy under the provision of the Meiji Civil Code (1898). Furthermore, as many remaining case records suggest, the legal status of leasehold rights in colonial Korea was poorly secured comparing to that of Japan. As a judicial counselor of Japanese Resident-General of Korea, Dr. Ume Kenjiro conducted investigations regarding Korea`s land customs, and he was also one of the three figures who oversaw the drafting of Meiji Civil Code. He had a legislative framework that would attempt to create colonial law based on Korea`s own customs, yet this framework was nothing but a political practice that tried to conceal the fact that these were only “selected customs” useful for the colonial practices. The analyses of The Collection of Civil Customs Inquiry for Trial (Minsagwansuphoedaphyjip, Minjikanshukaitoishu) reveal that the colonial state held trials based on the “selected customs,” and The Collection of Precedents of Japanese High Court of Korea (Chosungodungbeopwonpallerok, Chosenkotohoinhanreiroku) sheds lights on the fact that the institutionalization of Meiji Civil Code did take place in colonial Korea. The fact that these political practices were the medium for coercive implantation of the concept of “tenancy” within the colonial society was not only forgotten and concealed but it also soon became understood as self-evident and even necessary (“naturalized concept”). The agricultural policies of the colonial state were indeed constructed upon this “epistemological violence.”

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 신용하, "李朝末期의 ｢賭地權｣과 日帝下의 ｢永小作｣의 關係: 小作農賭地權의 所有權으로의 成長과 沒落에 대하여" 6 (6): 1967

2 李英美, "한국의 사법제도와 우메 겐지로" 일조각 2011

3 국사편찬위원회, "한국데이터베이스"

4 조석곤, "한국 근대 토지제도의 형성" 해남 2003

5 양현아, "한국 가족법 읽기 : 전통, 식민지성, 젠더의 교차로에서" 창비 2012

6 배성준, "통감부시기 관습조사와 토지권 관습의 창출" 수선사학회 (33) : 215-242, 2009

7 김인수, "일제하 조선의 농정 입법과 통계에 대한 지식국가론적 해석 : 제국 지식체계의 이식과 변용을 중심으로" 서울대학교 대학원 2013

8 최석영, "일제의 구관조사와 식민정책" (14) : 1997

9 이승일, "일제의 관습조사와 전국적 관습의 확립과정 연구 ―『관습조사보고서』의 편찬을 중심으로" 대동문화연구원 (67) : 365-402, 2009

10 이철우, "일제 식민지 시기의 통치체제 형성" 혜안 2006

11 이승일, "일제 강점기 한국관습조사자료의 소장 현황과 분류․記述 －국사편찬위원회와 수원박물관 자료를 중심으로－" 한국법사학회 (46) : 387-431, 2012

12 한국역사연구회 근대사분과 토지대장반, "대한제국의 토지조사사업" 민음사 1995

13 정긍식, "韓國近代法史攷" 박영사 2002

14 鄭鍾休, "韓國民法典の比較法的硏究" 創文社 1989

15 宮島博史, "韓國土地調査事業史の硏究" 東京大學東洋文化硏究所 1991

16 小柳春一郞, "近代不動産賃貸借法の研究: 賃借権․物権․ボワソナード" 信山社出版 2001

17 仁井田益太郞, "舊民法" 日本評論社 1943

18 朝鮮總督府中樞院, "民事慣習回答彙集" 1933

19 홍양희, "植民地時期 相續 慣習法과 ‘慣習’의 創出" 한국법사학회 (34) : 99-130, 2006

20 高等法院書記課, "朝鮮高等法院民事判決錄"

21 朝鮮總督府中樞院, "朝鮮舊慣制度調査事業槪要" 1938

22 朝鮮總督府, "朝鮮慣習調査報告書" 1913

23 朝鮮總督府, "朝鮮の小作慣行(上)" 1932

24 岡孝, "明治民法と梅謙次郞" 88 (88): 1991

25 "明治文化全集"

26 金正明, "日韓外交資料集成 6-(上)" 巖南堂書店 1962

27 高島平蔵, "日本の近代化におよぼした外国法の影響: 土地所有および利用関係を中心として" 2 (2): 1966

28 박화진, "日本 近世 ‘地方書’ 成立에 관한 一考察: 『地方凡例錄』을 중심으로" 효원사학회 (18) : 1994

29 朝鮮總督府中樞院, "小作ニ關スル慣習調査書" 1930

30 諸橋轍次, "大漢和辭典" 1989

31 "全國民事慣例類集"