초록 열기/닫기 버튼
이 연구에서는 16세기 말에서 17세기 초 사이에 벌어진 제주에 거주하는 강언준 등과 서울에 거주하는 이규장, 이순달 사이의 노비 소송을 검토함으로써 조선시대 소송을 통한 권리 보호의 수준을 파악해보고자 했다. 이 소송의 주요 분석 대상 자료는 강언준 등 제주민 4인이 이순달을 상대로 제주목에 제기한 소송 과정과 판결문이 수록된 1597년~1601년 사이에 발급된 제주목 결급 입안이다. 이 소송은 소송의 핵심 쟁점을 해결할 수 있는 직접적 증거를 피고인 이순달로부터 제출받지 못한 채 방증 자료를 근거로 판결이 이루어졌다. 이를 통해 원고측과 피고측이 동의하고, 방증 자료로도 사실 관계에 대한 추론이 가능하다면 사실 관계를 직접적으로 증명할 수 있는 핵심 증거 문서를 제출받지 못한 상태에서 판결이 이루어지기도 했다는 것이 확인된다. 이는 송관이 원거리 소송시 소송 사안에 대한 모든 증거와 정보를 파악하지 못한 상태에서 일부 증거로 판결을 내림으로써 이후 이 방증 자료의 증거 능력이 문제가 된다면 분쟁이 지속될 수 있다는 것을 의미한다. 이 소송은 강언준 등 제주민들이 유적에게 도매(盜賣) 노비를 매득한 것이 발단이 된 소송이다. 이규장이 유적을 상대로 조상 유루 노비를 도매했다면서 형조에 소송을 제기하면서 강언준 등의 소유권 행사에 문제가 발생했는데, 이때 강언준 등은 유적과 이규장의 거주지인 서울까지 올라가 법사에 소지를 올려 자신의 소유권을 보전받아야 했다. 이 당시 이규장의 소송을 접수한 형조에서는 유적과 제주민들 사이에 작성되었던 매매 문기를 무효화하는 조치를 취했을 뿐 도매 피해자일 수 있는 매득자의 재산권을 보호하기 위한 조치를 취하지 않았던 것이다. 도매 사안에 대한 소송에서 관사에서 매득자의 재산권을 보전하는 것이 주요 관심사가 아니었다는 사실은 다른 결송 입안의 사례들을 통해서도 파악된다. 첫째, 도매 재산 추심자가 도매자가 아닌 또 다른 피해자일수도 있는 시집자(時執者)를 상대로 소송한 사례가 많았고, 이것이 허용되었다. 둘째, 송관은 소송을 제기하지 않는 피해자에 대해서는 관에서 나서서 구제하고자 하지 않았고 원고, 피고 중 누구에게 결급할 것인지만 결정하여 판결했다. 조선에서 도매로 인한 개인의 재산권의 침해는 피해자가 직접 소송을 제기해야만 법적 판단과 처벌이 이루어질 수 있었던 것이다. 이를 통해 조선시대 송관은 소송 당사자들의 권리 보호보다는 현재 발생한 분쟁의 처리 자체에 더 큰 관심을 기울였음을 알 수 있다. 이에 따라 거래 행위로 인한 사인(私人)의 재산 피해는 피해 당사자가 소송을 통해 보전받아야 했으며, 거래의 안정성을 위한 체계가 미흡했던 것으로 파악된다.
This paper analyzes the lawsuit between Jeju residents Kang Eon-jun and co-litigants, and Seoul residents Yi Gyu-jang and Yi Sun-dal over certain nobi—a dispute which unfolded between the late 16th and early 17th centuries—in order to assess the degree to which rights were protected through lawsuits during the Joseon period. The source at the heart of its analysis is thus the “Jeju-mok Suit Certificate of Adjudication”—issued between 1597 and 1601, and recording both the course of the lawsuit filed in Jeju-mok by Jeju residents Kang Eon-jun and four others against Yi Sun-dal, as well as the judgment of its adjudicating official. Because insufficient direct evidence on the matter in question was submitted by defendant Yi Sun-dal, decision on this suit was reached on the basis of circumstantial evidence. As this shows, given the possibility that circumstantial evidence play a role in cases in which both plaintiff and defendant agreed to its use in elucidating the facts of a given dispute, a judgment could also be reached even in a case in which the direct evidence submitted testifying to the facts of a dispute was insufficient. This meant that in instances of lawsuits between faraway litigants—in which adjudicating officials were unable to ascertain the full extent of information or evidence concerning a matter in question and thus reached their decisions based on partial evidence—the admissibility of circumstantial evidence could later be called into question and thereby prolong the dispute. The “Jeju-mok Suit Certificate of Adjudication” describes a lawsuit that arose out of the purchase—by Kang Eon-jun and his Jeju-based co-litigants—of nobi from a certain Yu Jeok. Because Yu did not have proper ownership rights over those nobi, they constituted stolen property. Yi Gyu-jang filed suit against Yu Jeok with the Ministry of Penal Affairs (刑曹) alleging that Yu had illicitly sold nobi considered the residuary human estate of Yi’s ancestors and thus improperly obtained by Yu; that is to say, the nobi in question was not expressly conveyed to an inheritor by that nobi’s owners and thus formed that owner’s residuary estate, to be dealt with through intestate succession. This created a problem for Kang Eon-jun and his co-litigants as they attempted to exercise their ownership rights; Kang and his co-parties later traveled to Seoul—where Yi Gyu-jang and Yu Jeok resided—and filed a petition with the capital’s legal officials demanding that their ownership rights be protected. For Kang and his co-litigants, the problem was that the Ministry of Penal Affairs, which had received Yi Gyu-jang’s suit, had simply requested the invalidation of the sales document created between the Jeju residents and Yu Jeok; the Ministry had not taken any measures to protect the property rights of the purchasers of the nobi in question, who were quite possibly the victims of a fraudulent sale of stolen property. That in suits involving the sale of stolen property protecting the property rights of purchasers was not the primary concern of officials is also borne out in the certificates of adjudication of other suits. First, there were many cases in which the party seeking to recover some illicitly sold, improperly obtained property filed suit not against the person who had obtained and sold the property in question, but rather, against the current possessor of that property. This practice was, moreover, widely accepted. Second, the adjudicating officials did not make separate efforts to provide relief to victims who had not filed lawsuits of their own; rather, they determined who among the named plaintiffs and defendants to rule in favor of, and passed down judgments accordingly. In Joseon, the violation of an individual’s property rights arising out of a sale of improperly obtained property could only be adjudicated and redressed through the law if the said victim filed a lawsuit on their own. In the Joseon period, adjudicating officials appeared to show more interest in the actual settlement of disputes at hand rather than in the protection of the rights of those involved in a given lawsuit. Accordingly, the damages to the property and property rights of private individuals that arose out of various transactions had to be addressed through lawsuits by those victims themselves if they were to receive any protection or redress. Such were the flaws in the period’s system for guaranteeing the stability of transactions.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Lawsuits between faraway litigants, protection of rights, evidence, sale of improperly obtained property, Jeju-mok(濟州牧)
