駐朝鮮使館의 화교 실태조사와 관리 ― 청일전쟁 이전 漢城ㆍ仁川을 중심으로 ―

김희신 명청사학회 2010 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.34

This study was conducted as a part of research on the history of policies for Chinese in Chosun, focusing on how China managed Chinese in Chosun in consideration of international environment surrounding Chosun in those days. It was after the conclusion of <Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects> that China tried active management of Chinese in Chosun, which was a strategic region in East Asia. Thus, it sent Qing trade commissioners to open ports including Hanseong so that they would be responsible to protect Chinese merchants. The first Trade Commissioner was Chen Shu Tang, who was succeeded by Yuan Shi Kai as the General Commissioner of Trade. Offices in the open ports and Hanseong where the trade commissioners resided became bases for managing and protecting Chinese merchants. With this, the minimum condition was satisfied for Chinese merchants to run their business in Chosun safely. At the beginning, the offices had limitations in personnel, budget, etc., so they had difficulty in managing Chinese in Chosun. With increase in the number of Chinese merchants, Chinese merchants established their own private organizations called Center and the directors of the organizations were given responsibility to survey and monitor the state of Chinese in Chosun. Particularly in 1889, the Police Office was erected in Hanseong, and it assumed responsibility for management and inspection according to <Regulations for Policing>. Trade between Korea and China was conducted basically based on <Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects>. However, the range of Chinese activities in Chosun went beyond Hanseong and open ports permitted by the regulations. An example was trade with inland areas through the issue of travel document. Travel document was issued in a form approved by the officials of both countries and through the joint sealing by the officials of both countries. In the procedure of the application, issue and return of travel document, the director of each center was involved and stood security and he assumed responsibility to manage the Chinese merchant. Furthermore, illegal acts occurred frequently such as entering an inland area without travel document and opening a shop, smuggling without passing through the open ports, and running business wherever they wanted. Such acts were regulated strictly by punishing the involved director and surety. Chinese officers gave instructions against illegal stay and smuggling continuously, and arrested and deported offenders. Most of previous studies understood the background of such frequent illegal acts as a phenomenon resulting from the trade relation between Chosun and China. In addition, they underestimated the Chinese officers’ series of actions against illegal acts as nominal gestures existing only in official documents. Until the establishment of the offices, however, there had never been such a strict measure to manage Chinese in Chosun. The management of Chinese in Korea was also for protecting them, and while Chinese in Chosen were managed and protected by the Chinese government, Chinese merchants could maintain and expand their power stably in Hanseong and Incheon where they competed with Korean and Japanese merchants. On the other hand, the rampancy of illegal acts was considered to disgrace China as a big country and to damage their image among Korean people. From this viewpoint, the management of Chinese merchants was one of efforts to save the face of China as a big country, and again the issue is returned to the ‘inequality’ problem of <Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects>. It was just and necessary enough for China to trade with Korea and to manage Chinese merchants according to <Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects>. Trade between Korea and China was basically conducted under <Regulations for Maritime and ...

淸日戰爭 이전과 이후 在韓 韓中間 '訴訟' 안건 비교 분석

이은자(Lee Eun-ja) 가천대학교 아시아문화연구소 2009 아시아문화연구 Vol.17 No.-

This study examined changes in Korea China relationship in the 19t<SUP>th</SUP> century by analyzing the proceedings of legal cases between Koreans and Chinese in Korea (Chosun or the Daehan Empire) before and after the Sino Japanese War. Among the legal cases, murder cases were selected from cases before the Sino Japanese War and from those after, and their proceedings and results were examined. First, the legal ground of the proceedings of legal cases before the Sino Japanese War was stipulated in Article 2 of the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects established in August 1882. According to the regulations, if a Chinese was the defendant and a Korean was the plaintiff in a case that had happened in Korea, the offender was to be arrested and tried by the Chinese Trade Commissioner (a diplomatic mission equivalent to a consul). If a Chinese was the plaintiff and a Korean was the defendant, the offender was to be arrested by the Korean government and delivered to the Chinese Trade Commissioner and to be investigated and tried jointly by the two countries. In Korea, accordingly, China was authorized to rule cases in which the defendant was a Chinese and the plaintiff was a Korean by itself, and those in which the defendant was a Korean and the plaintiff was a Chinese jointly with the Korean government. Next, the legal ground for the proceedings of legal cases after the Sino Japanese War was stipulated in Article 5 of the Treaty of Commerce between Korea and China concluded in September 1899. According to the treaty, if a Chinese was the defendant and a Korean was the plaintiff in a case that had happened in Korea, the case was tried by the Chinese Consul and a Korean official could attend the trial as an observer on behalf of the plaintiff. If a Korean was the defendant and a Chinese was the plaintiff, the case was tried by a Korean judge and a Chinese official could attend the trial. The observer was guaranteed to question or cross question witnesses and to argue against unfair judgments. For the case that a Chinese was murdered in Korea before the Sino Japanese War (the murder case of Chinese merchant Cho hale In), a Chinese official tried jointly with a Korean official, and for the case that a Korean was murdered (the assault and murder of Korean solider Lee Deok Myeong), the Chinese suspect was protected actively by the Chinese agency. On the contrary, the Korean government delivered the Korean criminal for the murder of a Chinese to the Chinese agency and had to try him jointly with the Chinese official, and could not raise any objection to the result of the trial of the Chinese offender in a murder case of a Korean. When a Korean woman (Kang) was murdered by a Chinese in Korea after the Sino Japanese War, the Chinese Consul protected the offender strictly under the according to defendant's nationality principle of the Consul's jurisdiction regardless of the Korean observer's opinion. On the contrary, when a Chinese was murdered (the assault and murder case of Chinese seaman in Hae Zu), the Korean government sent an observer, but had little influence on the consequence of the trial. This situation was much different from that before the Sino Japanese War. However, the new Korea China relationship after the Sino Japanese War ended up as a mere short term 'experiment' due to change in Korea Japan relationship.

개항기(1876~1910) 조선의 아편확산과 청국 상인

박강 한국민족운동사학회 2014 한국민족운동사연구 Vol.0 No.80

During more than a century after Opium War the opium raised a serious problem in chinese society. Over chinese border opium had an evil influence on neighboring Joseon. In Joseon the inflow and spread of opium began as soon as ports were opened. Especially chinese merchants related to the inflow and spread of opium from 1882 upward, when economic relations and trade between the two countries were active. Throughout the nineteenth century China was having a serious social problem caused by opium. The two country, Joseon and Qing, maintained the close exchange each other and were border countries. So there was hige probability of opium's inflow into Joseon by China. After opening port the opium problem of Joseon reached a serious standard by interchange between two countries, Joseon and Qing, though the government of Joseon took warning. At first glance, it was expected that the serious situation of opium spread occurred by illegal activities of chinese merchants taking advantage of consular jurisdiction when they gained through regulations for maritime and overland trade between Chinese and Korean subjects in 1882. Actually the curse of opium occurred after the Sino­Japanese War. Especially after treaty for commerce between Korea and Qing in 1899 as bilateral consular jurisdiction was maintained and a lot of chinese people such as small merchants and coolies moved to Joseon, most of them engaged in illegal activities referring to opium. As a result around 1910 opium spreaded across the nation. the main culprit of opium diffusion was chinese merchants. With this negative recognition on chinese people was stamped on korean. That affected the exclusion of overseas chinese in japanese colonial era. 아편전쟁 전후 이래 100여 년 동안 중국사회에 심각한 사회문제를 야기했던 아편문제는 비단 중국만의 문제에 그치지 않고 이웃한 조선에도 영향을 미쳤다. 조선의 아편유입과 확산은 조선이 개항되면서 시작되었으며, 특히 1882년 이후 활발해진 청국과의 경제교류 속에서 청국 상인과 관련이 깊었다. 그러나 지금까지 조선의 아편유입 및 확산과 청국 상인과의 관련성을 심도 있게 다룬 연구는 거의 없다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 조선의 아편유입 및 확산과 청국 상인과의 관계에 대해 중점적으로 살펴보았다. 동아시아 최대 강국인 청조가 영국과의 아편전쟁에서 패하였음에도 불구하고 조선정부는 외세의 침략보다는 아편의 유입을 더 경계하였다. 조선정부는 연행사절을 통해 아편전쟁 전후 이래 중국의 아편문제와 아편전쟁에 관한 소식을 전해 듣고 있었다. 청조가 1,2차 아편전쟁에서 패한 사실에 대해 조선정부는 당초 위기감을 가지기도 하였으나 정보를 자의적으로 해석하고 위기의식을 가급적 축소하여 감추고자 하면서 위기의식은 점차 완화되었다. 그러나 아편문제에 대해서는 경계심을 늦추지 않았다. 청조와 국경을 접한 조선에 영향을 미칠 것에 대해 크게 우려하였다. 이에 따라 아편전쟁 이후는 물론 1876년 이래 조선정부는 각국과의 개항 과정에서도 아편의 유입 및 판매를 차단하기 위해 노력하였다. 그러나 1882년 조선정부와 청정부 간에 조청무역장정이 체결되고, 이어서 1899년 대한제국과 청정부 간에 한청통상조약이 체결되면서 아편의 유입 및 판매가 우려되었다. 조청무역장정 체결 당시 이미 중국에서는 아편이 합법화되어 사회적으로 심각한 상황에 놓여 있었다. 뿐만 아니라 당시 일반 중국인들은 아편의 해독에 대한 정확한 인식이 결여되어 있었다. 이러한 상황에서 조청무역장정을 통해 청국 상인들이 개항장은 물론 한성에서 거주하게 되었고 내지에서의 상업활동이 이루어졌으며, 조선의 북부 국경지대인 의주와 회령에서도 수시로 교역이 가능해졌다. 이로써 아편의 유입 및 판매 가능성이 높아지게 되었다. 더욱이 중국인과 관련된 사건에서 원피고 여부를 불문하고 단독 혹은 공동으로 영사재판권을 행사할 수 있게 되어 아편범죄가 더욱 우려되었다. 아울러 청일전쟁 이후 1899년에 대한제국과 청정부 사이에 체결된 한청통상조약이 비록 불평등성이 완화된 조약이었지만 쌍무적인 영사재판권이 그대로 존속되면서 청국 상인들의 불법을 차단하기에는 한계가 있었다. 조청무역장정의 우려와는 달리 청일전쟁 이전 청국 상인들을 통한 조선으로의 아편유입 및 판매는 의외로 심각하게 드러나지 않았다. 조청무역장정 체결 이후 한성과 개항장에 들어온 청국 상인들은 청정부나 조선정부로부터 공식적인 허가를 받고 들어온 사람들로 대체로 정상적인 상업활동에 종사하던 유력 상인들이 많았기 때문이다. 청일전쟁 이전까지 조선의 언론 등에서도 청국 상인에 의한 아편유입 및 판매와 관련된 기사 역시 찾아보기 힘들다. 그렇지만 당시 조선에서의 청국의 위세 등을 감안해 볼 때 청일전쟁 이전 조선의 언론 등에서 청국 상인들의 아편 관련 기사가 없다고 해서 조선에서 청국인의 아편문제가 없었다고 볼 수는 없다. 청일전쟁 직후 여러 언론과 재판문서 등에 청국 상인들의 아편판매 폐단에 관한 내용들이 제기되는 것을 보면 더욱이 그렇다. 청일전쟁에서 청조가 ...

개항기(1876~1910) 조선의 아편소비와 확산

박강 한국민족운동사학회 2013 한국민족운동사연구 Vol.0 No.76

The opium raised a serious social problem and cast a dark shadow over modern China nearly one hundred years. Opium smoking began in the Ming dynasty. Under the Qing dynasty the regulation on opium prohibition was imposed in 1729. But in 1840 Opium War, First happened. Strict prohibition of opium was impossible. Besides China was defeated in Opium War, Second. By request of England, importing opium in china was legalized. After that opium was widespread in China. Then what circumstance of opium was happened in Korea that neighbored China? The Korean government(Joseon or Daehan Empire) had wariness of opium from around Opium War period. Korea was not immensely shocked by defeat of China. But the Korean government tightened guard against opium problem. Since 1876 opening a port to each nation, Korea made a greater effort to block import of opium. Since Opium War the Korean government having wariness of opium had dealed with opium problem. Nevertheless opium was spreading into country. How was that possible? After opening a port opium was brought into country and became more widespread. Especially after 1882, the regulation for maritime and overland trade between Chinese and Korean subjects, there was brisk exchange between Qing dynasty and Korea. The influence of Chinese living in Korea and Koreans’ lack of understanding opium, government’s inexperienced manage and so on played each role to make opium spread. In Korea there were many opium addicts in the special zones. But though it was a few, opium addicts spreaded all over the nation. Also because opium had effect of pain relief opium was widely used for a suicide method. On this account the seriousness of opium spread to society was noted. Around 1920 the seriousness of the consumption and spread of opium in Korea required harsh measures to government. 근대 중국에 심각한 사회문제를 야기했던 아편은 100여 년 가까이 중국사회에 암울한 그림자를 드리웠다. 명대부터 시작되었던 아편의 흡연은 청대에도 이어지면서 雍正 7년인 1729년에 세계 최초의 아편 금지령이 내려지기도 하였다. 그러나 1840년 아편전쟁이 발생하였고 중국의 아편엄금 정책은 실효를 거두기 어려웠다. 더욱이 제2차 아편전쟁에서 또 다시 패하면서 중국은 영국의 요구에 의해 아편의 수입을 합법적으로 인정할 수밖에 없었다. 이로 인해 중국에서 아편의 확산은 걷잡을 수 없게 되었다. 이러한 상황에서 중국과 이웃한 조선에서의 아편상황은 어떠하였을까? 아편전쟁 전후 이래 조선정부는 중국의 아편 소식을 접하면서 강한 경계심을 드러냈다. 1,2차 아편전쟁에서의 청조의 패배는 조선정부에 커다란 충격을 줄만큼 위협적으로 다가오지는 않았으나 오히려 아편문제에 대해서는 커다란 경계심을 갖게 하였다. 이로 인해 조선정부에서는 1876년 이래 각국과의 개항 과정에서 아편의 수입만은 차단하고자 각별한 노력을 기울였다. 그러나 개항 이후 조선정부의 아편수입 금지 노력에도 불구하고 본국에서 아편문제가 심각한 청국과의 무역왕래가 본격화되면서 아편의 유입을 차단하기란 쉽지 않았다. 즉 1882년 조선정부와 청정부 간에 맺은 조청무역장정이 체결되면서 청국 상인들의 상업활동이 확대되었으며, 아울러 영사재판권을 향유할 수 있었다. 여기에 제2차 아편전쟁 이후 중국 국내에서 아편의 수입은 물론 생산과 유통 및 판매가 사실상 합법화되면서 청국 상인들의 아편금지에 대한 의식이 약화되었다는 점도 밀접한 관련이 있었다. 이와 같이 개항 이후 유입되어 확산되기 시작한 아편은 흡연 동기가 다양하였지만 질병치료와의 관련성이 가장 컸다. 조선에서의 아편흡연 동기와 관련하여 『황성신문』에 게재된 기사들을 통해 보면 크게 중국인과 교류하면서 중국인의 권유로 흡연하는 경우, 쾌락을 위해 흡연하는 경우, 질병치료와 관련하여 흡연하는 경우 등으로 구분해 볼 수 있다. 또한 『각사등록 근대편』에 수록된 아편범죄 관련 재판문서를 통해 살펴보아도 대체로 질병치료와의 관련성이 매우 높았다. 사실 아편흡연과 질병치료와의 관련성은 비단 조선만의 문제는 아니었다. 대만과 중국에서도 아편흡연의 주된 동기는 질병치료였다. 이러한 사실을 감안해 보면 조선의 경우가 예외가 아니었음을 알 수 있다. 그런데 조선정부가 아편전쟁 전후 시기부터 아편문제에 대해 경계심을 갖고 대처해 왔음에도 불구하고 아편이 확산되었던 것은 무엇 때문일까? 아편이 사실상 합법화된 중국과의 통상 교류 증대를 통한 청국상인들의 상세 확대와 아편에 대한 잘못된 정보의 전달, 청국인들의 아편흡연에 대한 유인, 조선 백성들의 대국문화에 대한 동경 등이 아편이 확산되는데 원인으로 작용하였다. 아울러 아편범죄 위반에 대한 정부의 처벌과 법집행이 엄격하지 못했던 점, 외국인 거주지역에 대한 아편단속이 어려웠던 점 등도 한 몫을 했다고 하겠다. 이들 요인에 의해 확산되기 시작한 아편이 조선사회에서 어느 정도 심각했던 것일까? 조선정부의 아편 단속법에서 1905년 이전의 경우 아편흡연 위반자에 대해 2년 이상 3년 이하의 감금에 처하였고 아편 범죄자에 대한 처벌 역시 1898년 이전까지는 고시를 통해 시행되었다. 이에 비해 1905년 형법대전 반포 이후 징역 15 ...

19世紀末 在朝鮮 未開口岸의 淸商 密貿易 관련 領事裁判案件 硏究

이은자(Lee Eun-ja) 동양사학회 2010 東洋史學硏究 Vol.111 No.-

This study examined the realities of Korean?Chinese bargaining by analyzing the procedure of settling three cases of consular jurisdiction through non?open port that took place during the period of Yuan Shi?kai as the General Commissioner of Negotiation and Trade with Chosun (1885?1894) before the Sino?Japanese War. For this study, we analyzed Cheongan (Asia Research Center of Korea University), documents of Chinese diplomatic offices in Korea during the late Qing Dynasty (Modern History Research Institute Archives of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica), and governmental documents in Hwanghae?do (Gyujanggak of Seoul National University). In the first case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang,’ Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang was arrested and his cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Taetan Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghaedo in September, 1889. In the second case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Hae Chung?hyeon and Ju Dong hae,’ Qing merchants Hae Chung?hyeon and Ju Dong?hae were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Bi?yeon Port in Jangyeong, Hwanghae?do in October, 1890. In the third case of ‘smuggling by Qing merchants Jang Eui?seong and Seo Geuk?geun,’ Qing merchants Jang Eui?seong and Seo Geuk?geun were arrested and their cargoes were confiscated for smuggling at Sukdo Ferry in Hwanghae?do in December, 1890. In the three cases of consular jurisdiction above, Korean?Chinese bargaining was initiated as the Chosun government detected Qing merchants’ illegal acts of smuggling and requested Yuan Shi?kai to punish them and to confiscate their cargoes, but the procedure went in an unexpected direction. For the first case, Yuan Shi?kai ruled Qing merchant Woo Ahn?dang to be a smuggler but he regarded the other crew members as fishermen and, rather, rebuked the Chosun government for seizing their boat. For the second and third cases, he called to account Chosun officers’ illegal taxation (on the Qing merchants’ smuggling) rather than the smuggling acts, and demanded to punish the officers and to compensate for the confiscated cargoes. In the process that Korea and China dealt with the cases of smuggling by Qing merchants through non?open ports, there are two noteworthy points. One is that these cases show well how Korea and China invoked the Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects. The other is that these cases suggest what networks smuggling by Qing merchants through non?open ports. The reason that Yuan Shi?kai’s claim was accepted by Chosun government in the process of bargaining is not irrelevant to Chosun officers’ unchecked illegal taxation in coastal cities of Hwanghae?do such as Jangyeon, Haeju and Hwangju, which were non?open ports but visited frequently by Chinese fishing boats. Of course, it is needless to say that Yuan Shi?kai utilized the provisions of consular jurisdiction over Qing merchants in Korea.

淸末 駐漢城 商務公署와 華商組織

김희신 동북아역사재단 2012 東北亞歷史論叢 Vol.- No.35

Overseas Chinese in Korea originated from Chinese merchants at the end of the Qing Dynasty. As each Chinese merchant had to be a member of a group in order to run their business in Korea, the guilds in Seoul naturally became the center of this overseas Chinese society. In this way, Chinese merchants in the early Chinese society in Korea formed their groups centering on specific localities, and the structure divided into groups was a remarkable phenomenon. However, while complying with the goals of the organization of the Chinese Guild, the Chinese merchants wanted to form their own groups with culturally homogeneous members, separate the organization, and promote the group’s common goals. This is also probably the reason that they were grouped by locality according to the traditional principle of organization. As the guild was established for pursuing common goals, namely,the development and unity of the Chinese merchant association, it was the first private office launched mainly by Chinese merchants. Chinese merchants opened a center for discussing public affairs and recommended the representative of the guild. In addition, they collected 0.4% dues from the members’ trades and used it for the operation of the guild. Even boatmen agreed on the “Regulations on the Guild” stipulated by Chinese merchants for raising funds for the guild’s operation. This suggests that there were motives for voluntary participation. However,the selection of director, the representative of the guild, was initiated by the role of supervising the ground-leveling work for the Incheon settlement, and the official seal was paid for by the Commercial Affairs Office. Furthermore, half of the money for buying the guild building was borrowed by General Commissioner Chen Shutang from official funds. Considering these facts, the guild was launched not as a completely private organization but as “a semi-governmental”institution. Differing from pre-modern overseas Chinese who were irrelevant to state power, modern overseas Chinese grew in close connection with state power. Chinese merchants in Seoul were managed strategically by their homeland from the early period of overseas Chinese social organizations. On the other hand, Chinese merchants used state power by complying with the state’s political strategies actively. This provided a base for Chinese merchants to grow and surpassed Korean and Japanese merchants in Seoul where competition among Korea, Japan,and China was most fierce.

The Endeavour to Revise Unequal Treaties in East Asia in the Early 1880s

Seunghoon Han(한승훈) 고려대학교 한국사연구소 2018 International Journal of Korean History Vol.23 No.1

이 글은 1880년대 초반 동아시아 불평등조약체제의 변화 가능성을 밝히는데 목적이 있다. 1880년에 조선은 청국과 일본이 5%의 수입관세율과 관세자주권의 상실로 경제적 손실을 입게 된 사실과 일본이 서구 열강에 조약 개정을 준비한다는 점도 확인하였다. 이에 조선은 일본 측 초안을 근거로 수입품에 대한 관세율을 10%로 정하고, 조선의 관세자주권을 보장하는 조약 초안을 작성하였다. 청국은 조선과 서구 열강의 조약체결을 중재하면서 조약 내에 조선이 10~30%의 수입관세율과 관세자주권을 보장받도록 하였다. 그런데 청국은 조청상민수륙무역장정(1882)을 통해서 청국과 일본에서 시행중이었던 5%의 수입관세율을 조선에 적용시켰다. 일본 역시 조일통상장정(1883)에서 8%의 수입관세율을 조선에 적용시켰을 뿐만 아니라 조선의 관세자주권을 부정하였다. 그 연장선에서 조선과 영국은 제2차 조영조약(1883)에서 주요 수입품에 대한 관세율을 7.5%로 정하였다. 제2차 조영조약의 7.5% 관세율은 청국과 일본에서 시행중인 5%보다는 높았다. 하지만 7.5%는 5%의 관세율에 2.5%의 내지통행세가 별도로 부과되었던 청국의 실질관세율과 동일하였다. 비록 일본은 5%의 관세율만 부과하였지만, 개항장 이외 지역에서 서양인들의 상행위를 엄격히 금지하였다. 반면에 제2차 조영조약에서는 대다수 수입품에 대해서 5%와 7.5%의 관세율을 부과하였다. 즉 실질적으로 조선에 적용되었던 평균 관세율은 7% 정도에 불과하였다. 더군다나 조선에서 서양인들은 개항장 이외의 모든 지역에서 자유로운 상행위가 가능하였다. 결과적으로 1880년 부터 제기되었던 동아시아 불평등조약체제의 개정 가능성은 조선에 불리하게 귀결되었던 것이다. This article aims to identify possible changes in the East Asian unequal treaty system in the early 1880s. In 1880, Korea confirmed that China and Japan had suffered from economic damage due to the loss of 5 percent import duty rate and tariff autonomy, and that Japan was preparing the Western powers to revise treaties. Therefore, Korea drafted a treaty that guaranteed the tariff rate of 10% on major imports and Korea‟s tariff autonomy based on Japan‟s draft of a treaties revision toward Western powers. China, which mediated the settlement of the treaties between Korea and Western powers, secured Korea with an import tariff rate of 10-30 % and tariff autonomy. However, China applied a 5 percent import tariff to Korea, which was in effect in China and Japan, through Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects (1882). Japan also applied an import tariff of 8 percent and denied Korea‟s tariff autonomy in regulations under which Japanese trade is to be conducted in Korea (1883). In the extension, Korea and Britain set a tariff rate of 7.5 % on major imports in the second Korea-Britain Treaty (1883). The 7.5% tariff was higher than the 5% tariff in China and Japan. However, the 7.5% tariff was the amount of the import duties and transit duties of China combined. Although Japan imposed only a 5% tariff, she strictly prohibited Westerners" trade in areas other than the open ports. On the other hand, according to the second Korea-Britain Treaty, Korea imposed a tariff of 5 % and 7.5 % on most imports. The average tariff applied in Korea was only about 7%. Furthermore, Westerners in Korea were free to trade in all areas as well as open ports. The possibility of revising the East Asian unequal treaty system, which was proposed since 1880, ended up being disadvantageous to Korea.

The Endeavour to Revise Unequal Treaties in East Asia in the Early 1880s

한승훈 고려대학교 한국사연구소 2018 International Journal of Korean History Vol.23 No.1

This article aims to identify possible changes in the East Asian unequal treaty system in the early 1880s. In 1880, Korea confirmed that China and Japan had suffered from economic damage due to the loss of 5 percent import duty rate and tariff autonomy, and that Japan was preparing the Western powers to revise treaties. Therefore, Korea drafted a treaty that guaranteed the tariff rate of 10% on major imports and Korea‟s tariff autonomy based on Japan‟s draft of a treaties revision toward Western powers. China, which mediated the settlement of the treaties between Korea and Western powers, secured Korea with an import tariff rate of 10-30 % and tariff autonomy. However, China applied a 5 percent import tariff to Korea, which was in effect in China and Japan, through Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects (1882). Japan also applied an import tariff of 8 percent and denied Korea‟s tariff autonomy in regulations under which Japanese trade is to be conducted in Korea (1883). In the extension, Korea and Britain set a tariff rate of 7.5 % on major imports in the second Korea-Britain Treaty (1883). The 7.5% tariff was higher than the 5% tariff in China and Japan. However, the 7.5% tariff was the amount of the import duties and transit duties of China combined. Although Japan imposed only a 5% tariff, she strictly prohibited Westerners' trade in areas other than the open ports. On the other hand, according to the second Korea-Britain Treaty, Korea imposed a tariff of 5 % and 7.5 % on most imports. The average tariff applied in Korea was only about 7%. Furthermore, Westerners in Korea were free to trade in all areas as well as open ports. The possibility of revising the East Asian unequal treaty system, which was proposed since 1880, ended up being disadvantageous to Korea.

조청상민수륙무역장정 제4조의 개정 배경과 의미(1883~1884)

김형근(Kim, Hyoungkun) 고려대학교 아세아문제연구소 2016 亞細亞硏究 Vol.59 No.4

본 논문은 1883~1884년에 걸쳐 이루어진 조청상민수륙무역장정 제4조의 개정 배경과 의미를 고찰한다. 기존 제4조의 개정에 대한 연구는 청국이 조청장정을 통해 균점하지 못했던 ‘조선 내지에서 청상의 통상권’을 취득하기 위해, 일방적・강압적으로 제4조를 개정한 것으로 논의하였다. 본 논문은 기존의 연구가 간과한 문제의식, “조선‑청국 내부에 존재했던 개정의 필요성과 동력”, “조청장정의 쌍방향성”에 유념하여 제4조 개정에 대한 새로운 논지를 전개하였다. Ⅱ장에서는 총세무사 하트와 이홍장의 논의를 통해 청 해관에서 조선의 지위 문제(‘외국’ 혹은 ‘성’)가 대두한 상황을 기술하였다. 조청장정을 조선‑청 양자적 관계에서만 판단했던 이홍장과 달리, 하트는 열강까지를 포함하는 다자적 관점에서 바라봄으로써 조청장정이 청국의 해관 시스템과 충돌한다고 인식하고 있었다. 따라서 하트는 수세 규칙의 개정을 요청하였는데, 조영조약체결 이전 이미 청조 내에서 조청장정의 내지통상에 대한 개정 요구가 나타났던 것을 파악할 수 있다. 이러한 요구는 향후 조청장정 제4조 개정의 청측 내적 원인이 되었던 것으로 평가할 수 있다. Ⅲ장에서는 1883년 11월 조영조약의 이권을 균점하기 위해 청국의 개정 요청이 이루어질 수밖에 없었던 논리적 이유를 조약들의 비교를 통해 살펴보았다. 조청장정 제4조의 개정과정에서 청국은 조선에 ‘청상의 조선 내지통상권’을 요구하는 대신, 두 가지의 반대급부를 제시하였다. 곧, ‘조선상인의 청국 내지에서 통상권’과 조선상인의 청국 내지 통상시 ‘납세법의 선택권’이었다. 위와 같은 교환을 통해 이루어진 조청장정 제4조의 개정은 향후 조선상인의 청국 내지 통상의 출발점이 되어 조청관계 상의 통상이 변화하는 계기로 작동하였다. This paper examines the background and meaning of revision of Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Chinese and Korean Subjects (RMOT) from 1883 to 1884. Previous studies on the revision of article Ⅳ argued that it was unilaterally and coercively revised so as to acquire the “Chinese merchant’s right for interior trade in Korea” which China had not acquired through the RMOT. This paper focused on the new themes, the necessity and intention of the revision that already existed in Korea and China, and interactivity of the RMOT, which were overlooked by the existing studies. In Chapter Ⅱ, I analyze that the problem of Korea’s status (‘Foreign Country’ or ‘Province’) raised in the Chinese maritime customs (CMC). In contrast to Li Hongzhang, who had adapted RMOT only in Sino-Korean bilateral relations, Robert Hart perceived that RMOT collided with CMC system by looking it in multiple relations including Powers. For that reason Hart requested the change of the CMC’s tax Rule, which was be the important reason for demand to revise article Ⅳ later. Such ask may be regarded as a probable cause for the future revision of RMOT. In Chapter Ⅲ, I examined the logical reasons why China asked Korea to revise RMOT in comparison with United Kingdom–Korea Treaty of 1883. In the revision process, China proposed two kinds of countervailing benefits instead of requiring the “Chinese merchant’s right for interior trade in Korea”. In other words, it was the “Korean merchant’s right for interior trade in China” and the “Right for selection of how to pay taxes” of the Korean merchants. The revision of article Ⅳ, which has been made through the above exchange, had served as a starting point for the future trade of Korean merchants in the interior of China before 1894, as a result, it has operated as an opportunity to change the trade system between Korea and China.

1880년대 영국외교관의 조선 북부 지역 여행에 담긴 함의 -영국의 경제적 확장과 관련하여

한승훈 ( Han Seung Hoon ) 고려대학교 역사연구소(구 역사학연구회) 2017 사총 Vol.90 No.-

이 글은 1880년대 조선 주재 영국 부영사 칼스와 캠벨의 조선 북부지역 여행에 담긴 함의를 밝히는데 목적이 있다. 그들은 조청상민수륙무역장정과 조러육로장정의 균점 여부를 확인하고, 조선의 광물 자원 현황조사 및 주로 금광 개발 가능성을 확인하기 위해 여행을 떠났다. 그런데 육로무역은 운송비용의 증가로 침체하였으며, 영국의 개항장 무역을 위협하지 못하였다. 그런 이유로 영국은 더 이상 조선에 육로장정의 균점을 요구하지 않았다. 한편 칼스와 캠벨은 외국 자본에 의해서만 조선의 광물 자원을 개발할 수 있다고 주장하였다. 광물 자원에 대한 외국의 이권 침탈을 정당화하는 논리를 제시하였던 것이다. 결론적으로, 칼스와 캠벨의 여행은 영국의 경제적 확장의 관점에서 추진된 활동의 결과물이었던 것이다. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the implication of British Diplomat`s journey in the northern region of Korea(North Korea) during 1880s. W. R. Carles and C. W. Campbell - British vice-consul in Korea - made a journey to the northern region of Korea in order to ascertain whether Britain would have equal shares in Regulations for Maritime and Overland Trade between Korean and Chinese Subjects(1882) and Regulations for Overland Trade between Korea and Russia(1889) and the possibility of exploitation of mineral resources - expecially gold. In conclusion, Carles and Campbell went to the northern region of Korea to British economic expansion.