본고는 1510년경에 최세진에 의해 편찬되었다고 알려진 『飜譯朴通事』가 최세진의 편찬으로 볼 때 야기되는 여러 문제점을 살폈다. 이를 바탕으로 현존 『飜譯朴通事』가 최세진이 언해한 것이 아닐 가능성을 제기하였다. 현존하는 『飜譯朴通事』에는 책의 간행 연대나 저자를 추정할 수 있는 어떤 기록도 없다. 『飜譯朴通事』가 최세진의 것이라고 단언할 근거가 없음에도 불구하고 그간 학계에서는 오랫동안 최세진의 것으로 믿어 의심치 않았다. 하지만 『飜譯朴通事』 6葉에 나오는 『老朴凡例』에 대한 내용, 『飜譯朴通事』의 번역과 『老朴集覽』 풀이의 불일치, 『四聲通解』에 실린 飜譯老乞大朴通事凡例의 설명과 맞지 않는 『飜譯朴通事』의 형식 및 書名, 『飜譯朴通事』의 서지적 정보 등을 고려해보면 최세진 편찬설을 준신하기 어렵다. 오히려『 飜譯朴通事』를 최세진이 편찬한 것이 아니라고 보았을 때 이러한 문제들은 적절히 이해될 수 있다. 현전하는 『飜譯朴通事』는 최세진의 것이 아닐 수 있다. 물론 본고에서 제기한 문제들이 『飜譯朴通事』가 최세진이 편찬한 것이 아님을 확증케 하는 결정적 증거가 될 수 있는가라고 의문을 제기할 수도 있다. 하지만 적어도 본고에서 제기한 문제들이 해결되지 않는 한 최세진 편찬설 또한 설득력을 가질 수 없는 것도 사실이다.

This thesis studied on the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa which edited in 1510 or thereabouts. The editor of Beonnyeok-Baktongsa widely known as Choi, Se-jin. But it also raised several severe questions. So this researched questions and presented the possibility that the editor of Beonnyeok- Baktongsa existing is not Choi, Sejin. There is no proof which the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa existing edited by Choi, Se-jin. Even though this fact the editor of Beonnyeok-Baktongsa widely and firmly known as Choi. This thesis presented several questions concerning the editor of Beonnyeok-Baktongsa. These are the record of 6th page about Nobak-beomnye in Beonnyeok-Baktongsa and contradictions of explanations between Beonnyeok-Baktongsa and Nobakjimnam. And also there are some disconcord between the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa existing and records in Beonnyeok-nogeoldae -baktongsa-beomnye, especially the title and construction of the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa. These problems make it impossible that believe Choi as the editor of the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa. The editor of the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa existing is possibly not Choi. Of course, up to now it in not clear who is the editor of the Beonnyeok- Baktongsa existing. But at least, we have to wait until some questions this thesis presented are solved.

This thesis studied on the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa which edited in 1510 or thereabouts. The editor of Beonnyeok-Baktongsa widely known as Choi, Se-jin. But it also raised several severe questions. So this researched questions and presented the possibility that the editor of Beonnyeok- Baktongsa existing is not Choi, Sejin. There is no proof which the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa existing edited by Choi, Se-jin. Even though this fact the editor of Beonnyeok-Baktongsa widely and firmly known as Choi. This thesis presented several questions concerning the editor of Beonnyeok-Baktongsa. These are the record of 6th page about Nobak-beomnye in Beonnyeok-Baktongsa and contradictions of explanations between Beonnyeok-Baktongsa and Nobakjimnam. And also there are some disconcord between the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa existing and records in Beonnyeok-nogeoldae -baktongsa-beomnye, especially the title and construction of the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa. These problems make it impossible that believe Choi as the editor of the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa. The editor of the Beonnyeok-Baktongsa existing is possibly not Choi. Of course, up to now it in not clear who is the editor of the Beonnyeok- Baktongsa existing. But at least, we have to wait until some questions this thesis presented are solved.

Beonnyeok-Baktongsa, Nobakjimnam, Choi, Se-jin, Beonnyeok -nogeoldae -baktongsa-beomnye, Baktongsaeonhae