한국 병탄(倂呑) 이후 35년 동안의 올바른 시대구분 명칭에 관한 연구

이일걸 간도학회 2019 간도학보 Vol.2 No.2

오늘날 우리는 1910년 ‘한국병탄’ 이후 35년 동안의 시대명칭을 학계에서 올바르게 검증하지 않고 매우 혼란스럽게 사용하여 왔다. 현재 유행되고 있는 ‘일제강점기’라는 용어에 함축된 의미에 대해서도 비판의식 없이 사용하고 있다, 광복 후 초기부터 ‘민족의 수난기’, ‘국권회복운동시기’, ‘일제시기’등으로 불렀으며, 1980년대 이후 ‘국권침탈기’ 또는 ‘민족의 저항기’로 나타났으며, 2000년대부터는 ‘일제강점기’가 빠르게 유포되었다. 그렇다면 ‘일제강점기’의 용어에는 어떤 의미가 내포되어 있는지 고찰해보자. 첫째, ‘일제강점기’는 비주체적인 용어다. 즉 우리 한국인의 역사 틀 안에서 제3자인 ‘일제’가 한국을 강점했다는 의미이다. 둘째, 일제식민사학자들이 주장하는 여러 개의 식민사관 이론 중 ‘일제강점기’에는 ‘타율성론’이라는 식민사관이 은연중 드려난다. 한국사는 고대시기부터 기자ㆍ위만 등의 외세의 식민지 지배로부터 시작되었다고 왜곡시켰다. 1910년 한국병탄후 일제에 의해 한국이 타율적인 지배를 받았음을 나타내었다. 셋째, ‘일제강점기’에는 식민사관 이론인 ‘임나일본부설’의 연장선상이라는 점이다. 즉, 신공후(神功后)ㆍ대화(大和) 남선침략(南鮮侵略) - 임나일본부 - 일제강점기로 이어진다는 점이다. 즉 20세기 초에는 ‘일제강점기’로 ‘일제’가 한국인을 지배했다는 사실을 내포하고 있다. 넷째, ‘일제강점기’에는 ‘정체성론’이라는 식민사관의 의도가 숨어있다. 즉, 한국을 정체되고 전근대적인 사회로 규정함으로써 일제의 한국침략을 정당화시키고 있다. 다섯째, ‘일제강점기’라고 부르는 것은 국제법상 무효인 ‘한국병탄조약’을 유효조약으로 둔갑시키려는 의도가 보인다. 1910년 ‘한국병탄조약’은 국가대표에 대한 강박에 의하여 체결되었으며, 또한 조약체결의 형식과 절차상의 하자(瑕疵)로 인해 불법ㆍ무효조약이다. 따라서 한국은 일본에 ‘한국병탄조약’의 무효를 외교절차에 따라 문서로 통보하지 않았다. 더구나 현재 국사편찬위원회가 이 시기의 명칭을 ‘일제강점기’로 규정하고 있다는 점이 놀라울 뿐이다. 그 결과 우리는 역사적 정체성의 혼란을 초래하였으며, 일인들은 이 시기를 ‘일본 통치하의 조선’ 또는 ‘식민지 조선’이라고 부른다. 그러므로 빠른 시기에 한국병탄조약의 무효를 서면으로 일본에 통고해야 한다. 우리 정부가 일본에 대해 ‘한국병탄조약’의 무효 및 폐기를 통보함으로써 35년 일제의 병탄이 불법행위임이 만천하에 입증되어 진다. ‘한국병탄조약’의 무효 통보로 인해 우리 한국인은 식민사관의 질곡을 벗어나는 근거와 계기를 마련해준다. 그러므로 국제법상 우리 민족의 법통성이 ‘대한제국’ ⟶ ‘대한임시정부’ ⟶ ‘대한민국’으로 계승되어진다. 또한 세칭 문제된 1920년, 1948년의 건국론의 시비문제도 해결된다. 그렇다면 비주체적이고 타율적인 ‘일제강점기’라는 용어를 대신할 가장 합당한 용어는 ‘항일투쟁시기’가 가장 타당하다. 따라서 짧은 35년의 시기를 비주체적이고 식민사관의 타율성론이 내재된 ‘일제강점기’ 용어를 퇴출시키고 주체적인 ‘항일투쟁시기’로 정립할 필요성이 있다. Up until this day, we have not been clearly used the name of the 35-year period after the Korea-Japan Annexation of 1910 as it has not been properly proved by the academia. Even the term ‘Japanese Occupation’ that we prevalently use, we use it without criticism. Following the Independence, this period was called the ‘National Suffering Period’, ‘Period of National Sovereignty Restoration Campaign’, ‘Japanese Imperial Period’, ‘Japanese Colonial Era’, and ‘Period of Anti-Japanese Revolutionary Struggle’; after 1980s, it was represented as the period of ‘Deprivation of Korean Sovereignty’ or ‘National Resistance Movement’; and after 2000 to present, use of ‘Japanese Occupation’ has rapidly spread. Then, let us think about the implications of the term ‘Japanese Occupation.’ First, the term ‘Japanese Occupation’ is a non-autonomous term. That is, it is hardly possible that the name of the period indicating the third country Japan has occupied Korea be present in our national history. It reveals that we were under Japanese rule for a short period of 35 years and that this historical period was not under our control. Although the Japanese occupation was illegal in terms of the international law, we do not need to disclose it. Second, there are several theories of the colonial history that Japanese historians of colonialism insist. Among them, a ‘theory of heteronomy’ of our history, which is the colonial history, is implicit in the ‘Japanese Occupation.’ It implies that Koreans were not the main agent, were uncivilized, and were not able to be autonomous during this period and therefore, Japan occupied Korea and Koreans were under the heteronomous rule for a short period of time. Third, the ‘Japanese Occupation’ is an extension of ‘Theory of Imna Prefectural Government.’ That is, it indicates that it was continued from Sin Gong HuㆍDae Hwa Invasion of Korea and Imna Prefectural Government to Japanese Occupation, meaning that there was the Imna Prefectural Government in the ancient South Korea and then Korea was under Japanese rule during the ‘Japanese Occupation’ in the early 20th century. Fourth, the term ‘Japanese Occupation’ also implies the "stagnation theory", which defines Korea as a static and premodern society, justifying the Japanese invasion of Korea and disguising its mission to modernize Korea. Fifth, there is a strategy of turning the invalid ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ in terms of the international law into the valid one by calling it the ‘Japanese Occupation.’ Not only the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ of 1910 was coerced into signing by the Japanese representative but also the signing form and process were flawed, and thus made the treaty null and void in terms of the international law. Therefore, it should be an abrogated treaty; however, Korea did not declare the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ of 1910 null and void by letter according to the diplomatic procedures. Moreover, it is surprising that the National Institute of Korean History defines this period as the ‘Japanese Occupation.’ Most elder historians have proclaimed that we should get rid of the colonial history, but the term ‘Japanese Occupation’ was formalized at some unknown point. As a consequence, it caused our historical identity crisis and Japanese scholars still define this period as the ‘Joseon under Japanese rule’ or ‘Colonial Joseon.’ Therefore, we should declare invalidity of the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ by letter soon. If the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ is abrogated, the Korean liberation armies- and independent armies-participated-anti-Japanese revolutionary struggle for reclaiming the sovereignty of the nation for 35 years will be the legal revolution, but not illegal. Also, it would be revealed that the Japanese rule was certainly the illegal occupation. By declaring the ‘Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty’ was null and void, the illegality of the 35-year period of Japanese occupation would be proved to the whole world. This would also be an opportunity to make free ourselves from the fetters of colonial history. Therefore, our legitimacy would be the Korean Empire – The Korean Provisional Government – The Republic of Korea. The so-called problems of Theory of National Foundation whether it was in 1920 or 1948 would also be solved. If so, the most appropriate term to replace the dependent and heteronomous term ‘Japanese Occupation’ would be ‘Period of Anti-Japanese Revolutionary Struggle.’ Therefore, we should throw out the term ‘Japanese Imperial Period’ in which dependency and theory of heteronomy are implied to describe the short 35-year period and establish the autonomous term ‘Period of Anti-Japanese Revolutionary Struggle.’

북한의 일제통치기 인식과 교과서 서술

김한종 역사교육학회 2005 역사교육논집 Vol.34 No.-

The framework of South Korea's primary understanding about history in Japanese Occupation History is divided into Japanese colonial ruling policy and national liberation movement against it. The understanding of North Korea is the same of South Korea's one. The beginning of Japanese Occupation Period is not regarded as 1910 but early 1900 decade being deprived national rights in, for example Ulsa Treaty(乙巳條約). Japanese colonial ruling policy is progressed as military ruling, 'cultural administration' and obliterating Korean nation people period. But the exploitation of Japanese is written more vividly and concretely in North Korea's textbook than in South Korea's textbooks. Such writings in North Korea's textbooks intended to educate the mass of people on the basis of socialism. But North Korea's cognition and textbook content on Korea Nation Liberation movement against Japanese colonial ruling is quite different from South Korea's ones. North Korea thinks nation liberation movement of nationalist and socialist net relating Kim, Il Sung(金日成) as wrong, and emphasize its problems. North Korea's textbooks write that the anti-Japanese partisan movement under the command of Kim, Il Sung is the only right one. North Korea textbooks describe that the anti-Japanese partisan movement under the command of Kim, Il Sung is the foundation of North Korea government. Accordingly, the period of Japanese Occupation is thought not only as Japanese colonial ruling period but as the starting point of North Korea today. North Korea's history education divide the former as 'history', the latter 'revolution history'. Such compilation of history education makes the understanding of post 1930's Japanese ruling policy and national liberation movement difficult. There is not the dispute on clearing the vestiges of Japanese colonial ruling, because the matters is brought to the solution throughout the establishment of people's government and 'Democratic Reformation(民主改革)'. The structure of historical studies in North Korea, which suggest the only regulating and uniting interpretation not acknowledging alternatives, affects this view.

일본학계의 안중근 연구 쟁점과 과제

한철호 한국근현대사학회 2012 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.61 No.-

An Jung-geun’s patriotic deed was practiced as a kind of righteous armies war against the invasion Korea by imperial Japan. Ito Hirobumi is regarded as the founder of Japanese modernization. Therefore it is not easy to come to an agreement between Korean and Japanese academia on Aung-geun and his patriotic deed. So this paper looks into the research trend in Japanese academia, focusing on the meaning of his deed, the possibility of third person shooting or double shooting, and the appraisal about his “Theory of Oriental Peace”. First, regarding An Jung-geun’s patriotic deed, Japanese scholars argue that Ito opposed the Japanese forced occupation of Korea before the patriotic deed. But this argument has a serious flaw, since it is directly linked to the view that An’s patriotic deed frustrated Ito’s moderate position on Korea and accelerated Japanese forced occupation of Korea. Some studies consider An's act as a patriotic one executed for the independence of Korea and oriental peace without any personal resentment. Thus we have to focus on the meaning of An’s patriotic deed. His deed disclosed the character of Japanese invasion policy to the world and made direct damage to that policy. Another well-known distortion of An’s patriotic deed is the theory of third shooter. It was first suggested by Murota Yosiaya, one of Ito’s retinue. It seems that this view reflected Japanese prejudice or Murota’s wrong pride, which does not accept that Ito was killed by a Korean. Still this third shooter theory is widely known in Japan and there are many speculations on who really shot Ito. But this third shooter theory has no grounds and is criticized even in Japan. Lastly, there are positive appraisals on An’s “Theory of Oriental Peace”, which argued for the independence of Korea and opposed Japanese annexation. But the viewpoint on the “Theory of Oriental Peace” should be reconsidered. The essence of the theory is in the necessity for the unity of Korea, China, and Japan facing with the invasion of Western powers and the removal of the causes of war and conflict between nations regardless of East and West. His “Theory of Oriental Peace” neither fell into racism nor contradicted the Idea of World Peace. So we should point out that this theory aimed for universal internationalism beyond the theory of Asian Solidarity. An Jung-geun’s patriotic deed was practiced as a kind of righteous armies war against the invasion Korea by imperial Japan. Ito Hirobumi is regarded as the founder of Japanese modernization. Therefore it is not easy to come to an agreement between Korean and Japanese academia on Aung-geun and his patriotic deed. So this paper looks into the research trend in Japanese academia, focusing on the meaning of his deed, the possibility of third person shooting or double shooting, and the appraisal about his “Theory of Oriental Peace”. First, regarding An Jung-geun’s patriotic deed, Japanese scholars argue that Ito opposed the Japanese forced occupation of Korea before the patriotic deed. But this argument has a serious flaw, since it is directly linked to the view that An’s patriotic deed frustrated Ito’s moderate position on Korea and accelerated Japanese forced occupation of Korea. Some studies consider An's act as a patriotic one executed for the independence of Korea and oriental peace without any personal resentment. Thus we have to focus on the meaning of An’s patriotic deed. His deed disclosed the character of Japanese invasion policy to the world and made direct damage to that policy. Another well-known distortion of An’s patriotic deed is the theory of third shooter. It was first suggested by Murota Yosiaya, one of Ito’s retinue. It seems that this view reflected Japanese prejudice or Murota’s wrong pride, which does not accept that Ito was killed by a Korean. Still this third shooter theory is widely known in Japan and there are many speculations on who really shot Ito. But this third shooter theory has no grounds and is criticized even in Japan. Lastly, there are positive appraisals on An’s “Theory of Oriental Peace”, which argued for the independence of Korea and opposed Japanese annexation. But the viewpoint on the “Theory of Oriental Peace” should be reconsidered. The essence of the theory is in the necessity for the unity of Korea, China, and Japan facing with the invasion of Western powers and the removal of the causes of war and conflict between nations regardless of East and West. His “Theory of Oriental Peace” neither fell into racism nor contradicted the Idea of World Peace. So we should point out that this theory aimed for universal internationalism beyond the theory of Asian Solidarity.

청일전쟁 직전 영국의 외교적 간섭 실패와 패권적 지위 균열: 영국의 대조선정책과 관련해서

한승훈 한국동양정치사상사학회 2020 한국동양정치사상사연구 Vol.19 No.2

In East Asia in the late 19th century, there were the Power Transition in a complex manner, not only between China and Japan over the adherence and dissolution of the traditional Chinese order, but also between the Western hegemonic leadership represented by the Britain and East Asian countries. Therefore, this paper focused on the first Sino-Japanese War as a starting point for Britain to lose monopoly hegemony in East Asia. Specifically, just before the first Sino-Japanese War, I analyzed the situation in which Britain tried to adjust the conflict between China and Japan and prevent the Sino-Japanese War through British policy of intervention. Before the Sino-Japanese War, Britain conceived that the crisis of Korea caused by Donghak could be solved through the reform of Korea. During the Donghak uprising, when the China and Japan dispatched troops to Korea, Britain tried to prevent the beginning of the war between the China and Japan through diplomatic mediation. In particular, against Japan, which refused to withdraw troops, the Britain tried to prevent Japan from starting a war, referring to the possibility of Russia intervening in the Korean problem. However, Japan rejected British diplomatic arbitration, arguing that the situation in which the Korea and China could not solve the problems triggered by the Donghak uprisings encouraged Russia’s intervention. On increasing the possibility of the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, Britain jointly conducted diplomatic arbitration with Germany, France, and Russia. Britain and American diplomats in the Seoul also supported the Korean government’s good-offices’ policy to demand the withdrawal of the Sino-Japanese troops. For the purpose of the withdrawal of the Sino-Japanese troops, the aims of Britain and Korea seemed consistent. However, the ultimate goals pursued by the Britain and Korea were different. Korea tried to maintain national independence. On the other hand, Britain tried to maintain the dominant position in East Asia by maintaining the status quo. For that reason, the last option Britain chose was the joint occupation of Korea by the China and Japan. Britain conceived of the joint occupation of Korea rather than the independence of Korea with the aim of maintaining its own economic interests through maintaining the status quo.

1920년대 『朝鮮文 朝鮮』의 “副業” 기사에 나타난 조선총독부의 의도와 현실

정혜인 숭실사학회 2019 숭실사학 Vol.0 No.43

‘Joseonmoon-Joseon(『朝鮮文 朝鮮』)’ is one of the journals issued by the Japanese Government General of Korea during the Japanese occupation. There are a number of previous studies that revealed the ruling logic of the Japanese Government General of Korea and signs of the times through articles published by the Japanese Government General of Korea However, ‘Joseonmoon-Joseon’ is dealt with only peripherally and no full-scale research has been done. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the ruling logic of Japanese Government General of Korea and its period through ‘Joseonmoon-Joseon’. The period was specified as the 1920’s. In the 1920s, a new media circumstances was formed with the appearance of the so-called National papers, the Dong-A Ilbo and the Joseun Ilbo. In this condition, the Japanese Government General of Korea promoted the policy and administration of the Japanese Government General of Korea through its publication ‘Joseonmoon-Joseon’, which was published as a mixed style of Korean and Classical Chinese. The Japanese Empire established a plan to increase the number of rice. Because of this the single-crop farming system was strengthened in the Joseon agricultural industry, focusing on rice. Also the rural economy has become more vulnerable. The Japanese Government General of Korea encouraged farmers to do sideline to stimulate the economy and promoted it through ‘Joseonmoon-Joseon’ Therefore, I reviewed articles on sideline work in the 1920’s ‘Joseonmoon-Joseon’. The sideline article was mainly composed of encouraging sideline, the status of sideline in each province of Joseon, the prospect of sideline business, and Joseon Sideline-products Exhibition. In particular, articles related to the Joseon Sideline-products Exhibition, which was held in October 1923, were mass-produced. All the reviews of Joseon Sideline-products Exhibition were written by Korean and this was defined by the intention of the Japanese Government General of Korea. The reasons for the Japanese Government General of Korea‘s promotion of sidelines were improving the economy of farmers, promoting rural areas, and improving local economy, but the rural reality of Joseon could not be improved because sidelines were not the primary solution. In addition to encouraging sideline, the sideline articles were also aimed at identifying the status of industries in various parts of the Joseon. 『朝鮮文 朝鮮』은 조선총독부가 일제강점기 동안 발행한 기관지 중 하나다. 조선총독부 발간 기관지 및 신문의 기사 내용을 통해 조선총독부의 지배논리, 식민지 시대상을 밝혀내는 여러 선행연구들이 있었다. 그러나 『朝鮮文 朝鮮』에 대해서는 지엽적으로만 다루어지고 본격적인 연구는 이루어지지 않았다. 이에 『朝鮮文 朝鮮』 기사를 통해 조선총독부의 지배논리와 그 시대상을 살펴보고자 한다. 여기에서는 시기를 1920년대로 특정하였다. 1920년대는 소위 민족지라 불리는 동아일보, 조선일보가 등장하여 새로운 언론지형이 형성되었다. 이런 상황 속에서 조선총독부는 국한문 혼용체로 발간된 『朝鮮文 朝鮮』을 통해 조선총독부의 정책과 시정을 선전하였다. 일제는 1920년대 조선 농업 정책으로 산미증식계획(産米增殖計劃)을 수립하고 이로 인해 조선 농업은 쌀을 중심으로 한 단작농업화가 강화되면서 농민경제는 더욱 취약해졌다. 조선총독부는 농가 경제 활성화를 위해 부업을 장려하였고 이를 『朝鮮文 朝鮮』을 통해 선전하였다. 이에 1920년대 『朝鮮文 朝鮮』에 나타난 부업 관련 기사 기사를 검토하였다. 부업 기사는 부업 장려, 조선 각 도별 부업 현황, 부업 전망, 조선부업품공진회 기사가 주를 이루고 있었다. 특히 1923년 10월 개최된 조선부업품공진회와 관련된 기사들이 집중적으로 양산되었다. 필진의 경우, 일본인이 다수를 차지했다. 조선총독부의 의도에 따라 기고자들의 입장이 규정지어진 부분도 엿볼 수 있는데 조선부업품공진회 관람평의 필자들은 모두 조선인인 점이 그러하다. 조선총독부가 내세웠던 부업 장려의 이유는 농가의 경제 향상, 농촌 진흥, 지방 경제력 향상 등이었으나 부업은 근원적 해결책이 아니었기에 조선의 농촌현실은 개선될 수 없었다.부업 기사는 부업 장려 외 조선 각지의 산업 현황을 파악하고자 하는 목적도 있었다.

일제강점기 보통학교용 역사교과서 개정 편찬에 관한 고찰

박제홍(Park, Je-Hong) 일본어문학회 2016 일본어문학 Vol.75 No.-

The present article analyzes the contents of the history textbook published by the Japanese Government General of Korea which were used at primary schools during the Japanese occupation of Korea. Japan did not teach history at primary schools after the occupation. Instead, it taught the basics of the Japanese history in Japanese. But the country witnessed the power of Chosun through 1919 (Samil) Independence Movement, and then changed the existing military government to the so called cultural politics. In accordance with these changes, Japan extended the total school years for Chosun children to six years from four years. Therefore, the subject of history was taught to Chosun children for two hours per week from the fifth grade. Since the Japanese Government General of Korea did not prepare for the unexpected changes of the education system, it only adopted the history textbook edited by the Japanese Board of Education and published a supplementary textbook briefly explaining only relational histories relating to Chosun. The Japanese Government General of Korea legally published the history textbook to be used at primary schools since 1922. Until 1938, the history textbook published by the Japanese Government General of Korea was written on the basis of the history textbook published by the Japanese Board of Education. The Chosun’s real history was only discussed as supplementary information. However, in “Elementary History” published in 1940 and used by both Chosun and Japanese children, the fifth grade courses were revised, and the history courses of the sixth grade were more substantiated. On the contrary, Japanese education adopted the chronological order and names in an old fashioned way, instead of keywords and reviews. The history textbook published by the Japanese Government-General of Korea after “Primary School Law” had the purpose of training the loyal Japanese citizens in order to lead the Pacific War to victory. Ironically, the history textbook for Chosun children published by the Japanese Government General of Korea overemphasized stronger ideologies than the history textbook for Japanese children published by the Japanese Board of Education.

일제강점기 조선과 대만의 영화검열 비교 연구

문한별(Moon, Han Byoul),엄진주(Eum, Jin Joo) 우리문학회 2015 우리文學硏究 Vol.0 No.47

대만과 조선은 일제에 의해 오랜 기간 강제 점령을 당했으며 검열 제도를 통하여 강도 높은 사상 탄압을 받아야만 했다. 본고는 일제강점기 대만과 조선이 받은 사상검열에 대하여 고찰하기 위해 근대적 대중 매체인 영화를 중심으로 논의를 진행하였다. 영화는 출판 매체에 비해 늦은 1920년대에 들어 본격적으로 총독부의 검열 대상이 되었으며, 식민지 각국의 상황은 서로 다른 성격을 보이고 있었다. 일제는 대만과 조선의 영화에 대해 1920년대 초반부터 각 지방별로 검열을 진행하다가 1926년에 비로소 통일된 법령을 만들어 탄압을 심화시켰다. 검열의 진행은 유사했으나 실제 내용은 식민지별로 큰 차이를 보이는데, 조선의 경우 대만보다 1. 5배 이상의 검열료와 처벌규정이 적용되었으며, 이에 따라 조선의 영화 관련 종사자들은 검열료 인하 운동 등을 통하여 대만과의 차별적 대우에 대해 강하게 저항하였다. 또한 대만은 느슨한 검열 제도 덕에 영화를 대체할 수 있는 전통적인 공연 장르들이 조선에 비해 상당 부분 존치할 수 있었으나, 조선은 강한 탄압에 의해 전통 공연들은 일찍 붕괴되었고 그 결과 영화라는 새로운 대중 매체에 대중들의 관심이 집중될 수밖에 없었다. 대만과 조선 영화에 대한 차별적 탄압은 결국 일제강점기 말에 이르러 조선 공연 예술과 산업의 전반적인 몰락을 가져오고 말았다. Taiwan and Korea suffered repression by the Japanese occupation forced for a long period of time, received intense ideological oppression by the censorship. This paper conducted a discussion with a focus on the film as a modern mass media in order to investigate the ideological censorship against Taiwan and Korea in the Japanese occupation. The film became the target of censorship in earnest by Government General in the 1920s, colonial situation of each country showed a different personality. Japan was proceeding to censorship in each region about the movies of Taiwan and Korea from the early 1920s, strengthened the crackdown by creating for the first time a unified legislation in 1926. Progress of the censorship was similar, but the actual content was a big difference in each colony. In the case of Korea, 1.5 times more censorship fee and strong punishment than Taiwan were applied. Accordingly, film workers in Korea were strongly resisted through such censorship fee-cuts movement against discriminatory treatment. In Taiwan unlike Korea, traditional performing genre that can replace a film could a large portion remained due to the loose censorship. In contrast, Korea’s traditional performances collapsed in the early by the strong repression, it led to results that the attention of the public was focused on the new mass medium of film. Discriminatory repression of the film in Taiwan and Korea by the end of Japanese colonial rule was eventually resulted in the overall collapse of the performing arts and industry in Korea.

조선총독부 간행 「일본어·영어 대조 텍스트」 : 사료군의 보고 및 연구전망

김효숙 ( Hyo-sook Kim ),곽은주 ( Eun-joo Kwak ),이병진 ( Byung-jin Lee ),탁진영 ( Jin-young Tak ) 국민대학교 일본학연구소 2020 일본공간 Vol.28 No.-

일제강점기와 관련된 기존의 연구는 일본어와 한국어로 쓰인 텍스트를 대상으로 하였으며, 영어로 쓰인 텍스트는 분석의 대상이 아니었다. 그러나 조선총독부는 당시 일본어 자료뿐만 아니라 그와 대응하는 영어 자료도 다수 발행하였다. 즉 「일본어·영어 대조 텍스트」라는 사료군이 존재하는 것이다. 조선총독부는 조선 지배의 정당성을 확보하기 위해서 서구열강의 「승인」을 목적으로 「문명의 언어」이자 타자(他者)의 언어인 영어를 적극적으로 활용하였다. 그러므로 조선총독부가 발행한 영어 텍스트는 서구 열강의 동조를 이끌어내기 위한 장치이자 퍼포먼스로 식민지 통치를 위해 작성된 일본어 텍스트와는 그 궤를 달리 한다. 「일본어·영어 대조 텍스트」는 그 이중성을 구체적·실증적으로 검증하고, 조선총독부의 대내적·대외적 의식구조를 입체적으로 조망할 수 있는 중요 사료로 이에 대한 정밀한 조사 및 분석이 촉구된다. 본고는 조선총독부가 발행한 「일본어·영어 대조 텍스트」라는 새로운 사료군의 연구의 필요성에 주목하고, 조선총독부가 어떠한 문건들을 제작했는지 보고한다. 그리고 이러한 텍스트가 국경을 넘어 유통·소비되는 연속구조를 고찰하고, 일본어와 한국어 텍스트를 기반으로 축적된 기존 연구에 확장성을 제시한다. Previous research on the Japanese Occupation Period has mostly investigated only Korean or Japanese text data in spite of the well-known fact that the Japanese Government General of Korea also published lots of the equivalent documents written in English. Considering this fact, the current paper is to highlight the importance of English texts parallel to those of Japanese (i.e., Japanese-English parallel texts). The Japanese Government General of Korea rigorously exploited English, a language of civilization and the third language rather than Korean or Japanese, to get an approval from western countries to ensure its legitimacy of Joseon’s ruling. For that reason, it was proposed that the English texts at that time were different from the original Japanese texts whose main purpose was to efficiently rule Joseon. In other words, English was a political vehicle to obtain support of the western powers; in the English texts parallel to the Japanese texts the Japanese Government General of Korea camouflaged its original intention which emerged in equivalent Japanese texts. Therefore, this paper proposes that we need to pay attention to the historical importance of English-Japanese parallel texts and call for a further investigation or analysis of the circulation of these texts and texts themselves.

古蹟調査委員會의 계룡산록 도요지군 발굴이력과 조사의 본질

엄승희 한국도자학회 2018 한국도자학연구 Vol.15 No.2

This study aims to give the whole picture of the excavations of the ceramic kiln sites at the foot of Gyeryongsan that was the biggest gathering and distribution hub for Chulhwa-Buncheong ceramics in the period of Chosun dynasty by analyzing the report from the Historic Remains Investigation Committee affiliated to the Japanese Government General of Korea and the Museum of Japanese Government General of Korea which made the first investigation, and by examining the intrinsic meaning of the investigation report, based on the analyzed result. The Gyeryongsan kiln sites played the decisive role in determining the future of the Buncheong ceramics in the central part of Korea in the period of Chosun dynasty. However, the major sites were considerably damaged by Japanese officials before and during the period of Japanese occupation. The investigation of 1927 when the first excavation was being advanced began when Nomori Ken and other research staff at the Museum of Japanese Government General of Korea discovered 12 kiln sites after the Historic Remains Investigation Committee had been set up. However, most of the layers of the sites was disturbed by increased grave robbery at that time and the unskilled Japanese investigators. The disturbed layers was closely related to the process of collecting artifacts. Their main purpose was to indiscriminately collect Buncheong ceramics that Japanese people liked rather than to achieve the proper result of the unprecedented excavations, which inevitably led to the destruction of the kiln sites. For this reason, there are still severe limitations on clarifying the proofs and characteristics about the retrieved artifacts. These excavations in the period of Japanese occupation began on the pretext of preserving Korean cultural assets, but it can be construed as a part of Japan's cultural policy. In this study, the result from the excavations of Gyeryongsan kiln sites is viewed as one that largely reflected the situation under the Japanese occupation, and the kiln sites are considered as a classic example of a kiln site from which we could learn lessons of history. 본 연구는 조선조 철화분청사기의 최대 집산지였던 계룡산록 일대 도요지군의 발굴상황에대한 전모를 밝히기 위해, 최초 조사에 착수한 조선총독부 산하 古蹟調査委員會와 조선총독부박물관의 조사내역을 분석하고 그 결과를 토대로 이 조사가 지니고 있는 본질적 의미를 분석하는데 목적을 두었다. 계룡산록 도요지군은 조선조 중부지역 분청사기의 맥락을 결정짓는 주요한 곳이다. 그러나이 도요지군은 이미 일제강점기를 전후하여 일본인 관료들이 주축이 되어 일대 주요 가마터를 상당부분 훼손시켰다. 1차 발굴이 진행되던 1927년의 조사는 고적조사위원회의 발족과 더불어 총독부박물관의 노모리 켄(野守健)을 중심으로 한 조사원들에 의해 12기의 요지를 발견하면서 시작되었다. 당시는 도굴이 심화된 데다 발굴조사에 미숙했던 일본인 연구진에 의해가마층위가 대부분 교란되었다. 가마층위의 교란은 실제 발굴품의 수습과정과 밀접한 관련이있었다. 즉 계룡산록 도요지군의 조사 본질이 새로운 가마터 발굴 성과를 위한 목적에 있었다기보다, 일제강점 당시 일본인들이 선호하던 분청사기의 무작위적 수습에 주목적이 있었기 때문에 가마터는 심각하게 파괴될 수밖에 없었다. 이에 따라 현재까지도 당시의 수습유물에 대한 명확한 근거와 특징을 정리하는데 많은 한계가 있다. 따라서 일제강점기에 시행된 계룡산록 도요지군 발굴은 한국 문화재의 보호, 보존차원에서시작되었지만, 그 본질은 문화정책의 일환으로 해석된다. 본 연구를 통해 계룡산록 도요지군의 발굴성과는 그 자체가 일제 강점이라는 시기적 상황이 크게 반영된 것이라고 보았으며, 역사적 교훈을 일깨워주는 대표적인 가마터로 인식했다.

공법분야 투고논문 : 일제강제징용 피해자의 법적 구제에 관한 국제법적 쟁점과 향후 전망 -2012년 대법원 판결을 중심으로-

박배근 ( Pae Keun Park ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.30 No.3

Almost all efforts of Koreans who were victims of compulsory draft during the last period of Japanese occupation of Korea to acquire legal remedy for the damages inflicted upon them by Japanese government or Japanese nationals (including juridical persons) ended without any success. They have raised various kinds of lawsuits before the courts of Japan only to lose the cases. Disappointed with these results, they raised similar lawsuits before the Korean courts and the outcomes were not different from Japanese courts` judgments till the Supreme Court of Korea delivered path breaking judgments on May 24, 2012. These two judgments by Korean Supreme Court, reversing two High Court judgments, recognized the responsibility of two Japanese companies to make compensation for the damages suffered by plaintiffs. Though it is beyond any doubt that the conclusions of the Supreme Court`s judgments are in accordance with demand of justice, there are some doubtful points with regard to the legal grounds for the decisions. When it comes to the issues of international law of the cases, the judgments suggest that plaintiffs` rights for the compensation of their damages were not the objects of the 1965 Claims Rights Settlement Agreement between Korea and Japan. The judgments further say that, even thought their ``claims rights`` might be admitted to be included in the objects of the 1965 Agreement, the rights waived there are only the right of diplomatic protection owned by state, and plaintiffs` individual rights are never waived by the Agreement. The detailed review of the reasons for the former conclusion of the Supreme Court in this study shows that they are not so persuasive. Similar review of the legal grounds for the latter conclusion shows that this part of the conclusions had better be based upon Japanese government`s persistent argument of non-extinguishment of individual claims rights by the 1965 Agreement. As Japanese government has very different view from the Supreme Court of Korea about the settlement of the plaintiffs` rights for alleged compensation, it is highly probable that Japan will call for the state responsibility of Korea when Korean administration enforce the execution of the Korean courts` decisions. In that sense, it may be said that a legal dispute is already arisen between Japan and Korea.