채무소송으로 본 華商의 商慣行(1906~1910) - 移住空間 漢城을 중심으로 -
The Commercial Practices of Chinese Merchants through Debt Suits from 1906 to 1910: Focusing on the Immigrant Area in Hanseong
1
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study analyzed debt liability suits in the “Documents of the Chinese Diplomatic Office in Korea” (「駐韓使館檔」) of the Chinese Consul Ma Tingliang(馬廷亮). I examined not only the aspects of competition among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean merchants at Hanseong as an immigrant area, but also activities and commercial practices of Chinese merchants. A review of 75 cases of debt liability suits in the “Documents of the Chinese Diplomatic Office in Korea” during Ma Tingliang’s time in office show that the process and the shape of suits differed according to the nationality of the complainant and the nationality of the defendant. In order to know commercial practices at Hanseong, this article mainly analyzed suits regarding a Korean merchant’s payment default. In many cases, payment default and debtor’s runaway happened in business between a Chinese merchant and a Korean merchant. This should be connected with the commodity distribution channels in Hanseong. It was common that the imported/exported goods were dealt through brokers, who did business as a broker or a wholesaler who repaid the value of the commodity later. Naturally, these types of credit-type business of indirect long-term connection between the buyer and the seller may have led to frequent disputes over payment. Chinese merchants who had not been repaid and, moreover, could not chase the escaped debtor tried to get compensation through a colleague(同夥) or a shop manager, or through a broker(經紀), and even through a relative of the debtor. In order to explain these situations, I reviewed how the Hapgua Company(合夥企業), a Chinese company,settled debt. In the Hapgua Company, it was the principle that the profits and the losses of the company shall be shared according to the ratio of shareholding. But when a debtor ran away, the creditor tried to ask the shareholder(s) or their relatives to return instead. At that time there was no concrete rule in the law, and the debt return might be ruled by general practice. In China, the shareholder(s) normally was also responsible for the debt. Thus, naturally, the Chinese merchant tried to get unlimited responsibility for the return of the debt from the business partner or from relatives. Also, in China a jingji , or broker, only performed brokering duties and had no responsibility for debt return. But in Korea, Chinese merchants sometimes requested the jingji to be responsible for the debt owing to the fact that the jingji did the urging of the return of debt and the debt return had been done by the jingji . As briefly described above, the relationship and meaning of the business partner, the employee, the employer, and others were considerably different between Korea and Chinese merchants. It seems that this difference was a major reason for the complexity and difficulties of resolving disputes.
Abstract
This study analyzed debt liability suits in the “Documents of the Chinese Diplomatic Office in Korea” (「駐韓使館檔」) of the Chinese Consul Ma Tingliang(馬廷亮). I examined not only the aspects of competition among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean merchants at Hanseong as an immigrant area, but also activities and commercial practices of Chinese merchants. A review of 75 cases of debt liability suits in the “Documents of the Chinese Diplomatic Office in Korea” during Ma Tingliang’s time in office show that the process and the shape of suits differed according to the nationality of the complainant and the nationality of the defendant. In order to know commercial practices at Hanseong, this article mainly analyzed suits regarding a Korean merchant’s payment default. In many cases, payment default and debtor’s runaway happened in business between a Chinese merchant and a Korean merchant. This should be connected with the commodity distribution channels in Hanseong. It was common that the imported/exported goods were dealt through brokers, who did business as a broker or a wholesaler who repaid the value of the commodity later. Naturally, these types of credit-type business of indirect long-term connection between the buyer and the seller may have led to frequent disputes over payment. Chinese merchants who had not been repaid and, moreover, could not chase the escaped debtor tried to get compensation through a colleague(同夥) or a shop manager, or through a broker(經紀), and even through a relative of the debtor. In order to explain these situations, I reviewed how the Hapgua Company(合夥企業), a Chinese company,settled debt. In the Hapgua Company, it was the principle that the profits and the losses of the company shall be shared according to the ratio of shareholding. But when a debtor ran away, the creditor tried to ask the shareholder(s) or their relatives to return instead. At that time there was no concrete rule in the law, and the debt return might be ruled by general practice. In China, the shareholder(s) normally was also responsible for the debt. Thus, naturally, the Chinese merchant tried to get unlimited responsibility for the return of the debt from the business partner or from relatives. Also, in China a jingji , or broker, only performed brokering duties and had no responsibility for debt return. But in Korea, Chinese merchants sometimes requested the jingji to be responsible for the debt owing to the fact that the jingji did the urging of the return of debt and the debt return had been done by the jingji . As briefly described above, the relationship and meaning of the business partner, the employee, the employer, and others were considerably different between Korea and Chinese merchants. It seems that this difference was a major reason for the complexity and difficulties of resolving disputes.
참고문헌 (59)
- "各司謄錄", 국사편찬위원회 한국사데이터베이스, ~
- "근대한일외교자료", 국사편찬위원회 한국사데이터베이스, ~
- "駐韓日本公使館記錄", 국사편찬위원회 한국사데이터베이스, ~
- "統監府文書", 국사편찬위원회 한국사데이터베이스, ~
- 高麗大學校亞細亞問題硏究所, "舊韓末外交文書 第8卷(淸案1)", ~ (1970)
- 國會圖書館立法調査局, "舊韓末條約彙纂 上, 中, 下卷", ~ (1965)
- 臺灣中央硏究院近代史硏究所 所藏 總理各國事務衙門, "駐韓使館保存檔案(35)-馬廷亮: 訴訟案件(062)-錢債案卷(一~六)(07-12)", ~
- 文海出版社印行, "淸光緖朝中日交涉史料 (上, 下)", ~ (1963)
- 施沛生, "中國民事習慣大全" (2002), 上海書店出版社
- 楊昭全, "朝鮮華僑史" (1991), 中國華僑出版公司
- 中央硏究院近代史硏究所, "淸季中日韓關係史料", ~ (1972)
- 韓㳓劤, "韓國開港期의 商業硏究" (1982), 一潮閣
- 허영환, "定都 600年 서울 地圖" (1994), 범우사
- 강진아, "이주와 유통으로 본 근현대 동아시아 경제사", 역사비평, (79), pp.125~150 (2007), 역사문제연구소
- 강진아, "동아시아경제사 연구의 미답지", 동양사학연구, 100(100), pp.249~282 (2007), 동양사학회
- 강진아, "廣東네트워크(Canton-Networks)와 朝鮮華商 同順泰", 사학연구, 88(88), pp.775~820 (2007), 한국사학회
- 강창석, "통감부 연구-이사청의 조직과 성격을 중심으로", 釜山史學, 13 (1987)
- 구범진, "韓淸通商條約 일부 條文의 해석을 둘러싼 韓-淸의 외교 분쟁", 대구사학, 83, pp.193~232 (2006), 대구사학회
- 김승욱, "20세기 초(1910~1931) 인천화교의 이주 네트워크와 사회적 공간", 중국근현대사연구, (47), pp.21~48 (2010), 중국근현대사학회
- 김승욱, "19세기 말∼20세기 초 仁川의 운송망과 華僑 거류양상의 변화", 중국근현대사연구, (50), pp.75~101 (2011), 중국근현대사학회
- 金英信, "開港期 客主에 관한 一考察: 개항장 객주를 중심으로", 석사, 사학과, pp.1998
- 김호범, "開港期 商業構造와 植民地商業體制의 形成에 관한 硏究", 경제학논집, 2(1) (1993)
- 김희신, "淸末(1882-1894년) 漢城 華商組織과 그 位相", 중국근현대사연구, (46), pp.53~80 (2010), 중국근현대사학회
- 김희신, "駐朝鮮使館의 화교 실태조사와 관리 ― 청일전쟁 이전 漢城ㆍ仁川을 중심으로 ―", 명청사연구, (34), pp.205~236 (2010), 명청사학회
- 김희신, "‘漢城 開設行棧 조항 개정’ 교섭과 중국의 대응", 동양사학연구, (113), pp.199~244 (2010), 동양사학회
- 盧相潤, "開港期의 韓國市場을 둘러싼 淸日의 貿易競爭", 社會科學論集, 5 (1987)
- 譚永盛, "朝鮮末期의 淸國商人에 관한 연구", 석사, 사학과, pp.1977
- 도면회, "일제 식민통치기구의 초기 형성과정-1905~1910년을 중심으로, In 일제식민통치연구 1-1906~1910" (1999), 백산서당
- 朴慶龍, "統監府 理事廳 연구-京城理事廳을 중심으로", 韓國史硏究, 85 (1994)
- 박정현, "19세기 말 仁川과 漢城의 중국인 居留地 운영체제", 동양사학연구, (113), pp.171~198 (2010), 동양사학회
- 박정현, "19세기 末(1882-1894년) 朝鮮 華商의 조직과 상업 활동", 중국사연구, (66), pp.51~86 (2010), 중국사학회
- 박찬승, "서울의 일본인 거류지 형성 과정 - 1880년대~1903년을 중심으로", 사회와역사(구 한국사회사학회논문집), (62), pp.3~100 (2002), 한국사회사학회
- 박찬승, "러일전쟁 이후 서울의 일본인 거류지 확장과정", 지방사와 지방문화, 5(2), pp.117~164 (2002), 역사문화학회
- 서영희, "한청통상조약 이후 한중 외교의 실제와 상호 인식", 동북아역사논총, 13 (2006)
- 손정목, "開港期의 漢城內 外國人居留 經緯", 韓國史硏究, 28 (1980)
- 왕종현, "대한제국기 한성부의 토지 가옥조사와 외국인 토지침탈 대책", 서울학연구, 10 (1998)
- 원재연, "1880년대 門戶開放과 漢城府 南門內 明禮坊 일대의 사회, 경제적 변화", 서울학연구, 14 (2000)
- 李炳天, "開港期 外國商人의 內地商權 侵入-淸商·日商을 중심으로", 經濟史學, 9(1) (1985)
- 이영옥, "한중 민간소송연구, 1906-1910―導之案姚貴春案劉金有案 등 살인사건을 중심으로 ―", 중국근현대사연구, (35), pp.1~30 (2007), 중국근현대사학회
- 이은자, "한국 개항기(1876~1910) 중국의 治外法權 적용 논리와 한국의 대응 ―韓中間 조약 체결 과정을 중심으로", 동양사학연구, (92), pp.187~227 (2005), 동양사학회
- 이은자, "韓淸通商條約 시기(1900～1905) 중국의 在韓 치외법권 연구", 명청사연구, (26), pp.89~121 (2006), 명청사학회
- 이은자, "大韓帝國時期 韓中間 民事訴訟의 實例 ―‘彭姜案’(1898～1900)을 中心으로―", 동양사학연구, (100), pp.177~215 (2007), 동양사학회
- 이은자, "淸末 駐韓 商務署 組織과 그 位相", 명청사연구, (30), pp.359~396 (2008), 명청사학회
- 이은자, "淸日戰爭 이전과 이후 在韓 韓中間 ‘訴訟’ 안건 비교 분석", 아시아문화연구, 17, pp.45~65 (2009), 아시아문화연구소
- 이은자, "淸末 駐韓 中國 公館의 조직과 그 위상 ―駐韓公使 許台身과 曾廣銓 재직 시기를 중심으로―", 중국근현대사연구, (51), pp.23~54 (2011), 중국근현대사학회
- 전우용, "한국 근대의 華僑 문제", 韓國史學報, 15, pp.13~412 (2003), 고려사학회
- 전인갑, "중국 근대기업의 지배구조와 合果 慣行 ― 지연망의 ‘사회자본’화 ―", 역사교육, (89), pp.195~225 (2004), 역사교육연구회
- 전인갑, "中國 近代企業과 傳統的 商慣行 ―合股慣行, 地緣網 그리고 社會資本", 동양사학연구, (90), pp.72~103 (2005), 동양사학회
- 정구선, "통감부기(1906~1910)일본의 치외법권 행사와 한국의 대응", 동학연구, (23), pp.119~147 (2007), 한국동학학회
- 정태섭, "乙巳條約 이후 韓 ‧ 淸 간 治外法權 연구(1906~1910)", 한국근현대사연구, (46), pp.53~80 (2008), 한국근현대사학회
- 鄭址鎬, "明淸時代 合夥의 經營形態 및 그 特質-中國의 傳統的 企業經營에관한 一考察", 明淸史硏究, 15 (2001)
- 鄭址鎬, "傳統中國 合夥의 債務負擔에 관한 商事慣行―近代法律과의 충돌을 중심으로―", 동양사학연구, 79, pp.5~156 (2002), 동양사학회
- 정혜중, "開港期 仁川 華商 네트워크와 華僑 정착의 특징", 중국근현대사연구, (36), pp.1~28 (2007), 중국근현대사학회
- 陳裕光, "華僑", 中央日報 (1979. 9. 17~1979. 12. 17), ~
- 崔墉, "開化期 私商의 變貌-客主를 中心으로", 實學思想연구, 4 (1993)
- 하세봉, "동아시아 교역권론의 지평 확대", 中國近現代史硏究, 10 (2000)
- 石川亮太, "朝鮮開港後における華商の對上海貿易-同順泰資料を通じて", 東洋史硏究, 63(4) (2005)
- 石川亮太, "開港期漢城における朝鮮人·中國人間の商取引と紛爭-『駐韓使館檔案』を通じて", 年報朝鮮學, 10 (2007)
- 이시카와료타, "조선 개항 후 중국인 상인의 무역활동과 네트워크", 역사문제연구, 12(2), pp.9~50 (2008), 역사문제연구소