earticle

영어

This paper explains the restoration process of Nak-San Temple after its destruction by a wild fire in 2005. It will include the description of how the faith, history and geographical charateristics of the Temple were appraised and understood to be reflected as an elementary step in the planning of the reconstruction. It will also show how the placement of temple structures and building style were determined. Understanding of the characteristics was based on the scriptures, historical records and other existing literary materials, and the placement of structures and building style were decided based on the past archeological findings, the old painting of Nak-San Temple and the existing buildings. The decision was made by the advisory commission for the restoration of the Nak-San Temple buildings, which was delegated by the Cultural Heritage Administration. The advisory commission decided to refer to the third stage, which is the oldest, among the past archeological findings for restoration of the main Avalokitesvara building, and to the late Chosŏn period (prior to 1800s) findings for the work on the living quarters, and to the painting by Kim Hong-do of the temple for the placement of these structures. With such basis, the buildings were constructed taking into consideration the top-level architecture primarily from the Youngdong region in the 15th to 16th centuries. However, in practice, there were problems as it was pointed out that the column and staired stone of main Avalokitesvara building were constructed differently from the original plan and that there were tensions and issues regarding the decision on the placement of the sun-greeting pavilion. It was also shown that in the process of surveying the historical materials for the restoration the decisions based on the uncertain archeological findings and unilateral reliance on Kim Hong-Do's painting was a wrong one in light of Kim Yoo-Seong and Kim Ha-Jong's paintings and other literary materials. It is also revealed that many literatures falsely record the construction of the fence of the main Avalokitesvara building to have occurred in 1468 and that it must have existed at least before the mid-13th century. Furthermore, it is argued that as the current frontal fence did not exist in the materials prior to 1953, it was wrong to record the entire fence as local cultural heritage and that this needs correction. The author further proposed the reformation of the top part of the inclined stone, improvements on certain parts of the roofs, and the installation of firewall in the exposed structures and additional work on the connection of the sun-greeting pavilion and sound pavilion. Lastly, the author hopes that this paper will contribute to improving the Korean Buddhism's past practice of not leaving behind detailed materials about its temples.

한국어

본고는 2005년 양양산불로 소실된 낙산사의 복원과정과 그 내용을 설명하고자 했다. 그리고 가람배치와 복원건물의 양식을 어떤 근거에 의해 결정했는지를 밝혔다. 낙산사의 특성 이해는 경전과 역사서, 그리고 문헌자료를 통해 이루어졌고 가람배치와 건축양식은 발굴조사 유구와 수집된 ｢洛山寺圖｣, 그리고 현존하는 건물들을 통해 결정했음을 밝혔다. 이 불사에서 의사결정주체는 문화재청이 위임한 ｢낙산사건물복구 자문지원단｣이었다. 이 자문지원단은 원통보전 복원설계방향을 발굴조사 유구, 1·2·3기 중 가장 이른 시기인 3기의 규모와 ‘조선초기 양식’으로 하기로 결정하였으며, 요사채복원은 발굴조사된 유구 중 ‘조선후기(1800년대 이전)’것을 근거로, 그리고 가람배치는 김홍도의 ｢洛山寺圖｣에 근거하여 하기로 결정했다. 이러한 근거를 바탕으로 15-16세기에 주로 영동지방에 건립된 국보·보물급 건축물을 참조하여 실제 건축이 이루어졌음을 설명했다. 그러나 시행결과 일부에서 차질이 발생했는데 원통보전의 쇠서와 기둥, 그리고 화계석 등이 계획과는 달리 축조되어 그 결과가 조화롭지 못했음을 지적했고 빈일루 배치결정에 갈등과 문제가 있었던 부분을 고찰했다. 복원과정 고찰을 위해 역사자료를 살피는 과정에서 불확실한 유구에 따른 결정은 빈일루의 배치와 김홍도의 ｢洛山寺圖｣에 일방적으로 의존한 잘못된 결정이었음을 김유성과 김하종의 ｢洛山寺圖｣, 그리고 기타 문헌자료를 통해 고증해 보였다. 또한 ‘낙산사’사지 등 많은 문헌들이 낙산사 원통보전 원장(垣墻) 축조를 1468년으로 기록하고 있는데, 이것은 잘못된 기록이며 최소한 13세기 중엽 이전부터 존재했었음을 밝히고, 현재 전면에 설치된 원장이 1953년의 이전의 자료에는 존재하지 않았음을 들어 원장 전체를 강원도 지방문화재로 한 것은 시정되어야 한다. 이와 함께 화계 상단석 재구성, 송월료 지붕물매 개선, 풍우에 노출된 건축물 부분에 화방벽 구축, 빈일루와 응향각의 연계성 보완공사 등의 개선 노력을 제안했다.