제주도 호적 작성 원칙 “無一漏戶 無一漏名”에 대한 고찰 (Study on the Principle of Family Registration in Jeju-do― Different View on the Principle of no Omission in the Family Register)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 성균관대학교 대동문화연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 대동문화연구 / 82호 / 335 ~ 370페이지
· 저자명 : 한금순

초록

제주도 호적 작성의 원칙은 1872년 도두리 「籍草紙本錢設置節目」을 근거로 ‘無一漏戶 無一漏名’의 철저한 호구조사가 시행되었던 것으로 연구되어 있었다. 그러나 제주도의 호적작성에서도 漏戶와 漏口가 빈번히 그리고 의도적으로 일어나고 있었다. 1896년의 <호구조사세칙>이 적용되는 전후 식년의 하원리 호적중초 甲午式(1894년 / 光緖 二十年)과 戊戌式(1898년 / 光武 二年)을 표본으로 하여 누호와 누구 현상을 살폈다. 우선 호적 작성 책임자인 이정과 감고의 호적 등재 현황을 조사해 본 결과 이정은 40%의 본문 누락이 드러났고 감고는 36%의 본문 누락이 드러났다. 이 정도의 빈도는 의도적이고 관례적으로 누락이 이루어지고 있었다고 할 수 있는 비율이라고 하겠다. 또한 남정의 실명을 확인하여 누락과 등재 현상을 살폈다. 甲午式(1894년)에서는 전체 남정의 20%인 40명이 누락되고 있음이 드러났다. 그리고 戊戌式(1898년)에 신등재되는 남자는 전체 남정의 28%인 63명이나 되었다. 두 개 식년 호적중초 사이에서만 총 103명의 이탈현상을 파악할 수 있었는데 이는 의도적으로 누락시켰던 것으로 생각된다. 두 개 식년 사이에 남정의 20% 누락과 28%의 신등재 현상이 드러난 이상 제주도의 호적작성 원칙이 ‘無一漏戶 無一漏名’을 지켰다고 보기에는 무리라고 생각한다.

영어초록

Meanwhile, the census in Jeju-do was known to be conducted under thorough principle that does not allow any omission of one person or household in the family register. However, with confirming the name of adults on factual registration in detail, this study figures out intentional omission of person as well as household in the family register. Additionally, this kind of intentional omission was frequently taken place in Jeju-do. This study investigates the phenomenon of omitting household and person based on the 26th volume(1894) and the 27th volume(1898) of data for the family registration in Hawon-ri, with setting up the year of 1896 as time criterion when ‘bylaw for census taking (detailed legislation for census taking)’ started to be applied.
Above all, this study searches for the name of ‘Lee Jeong’ (officer in charge of family registration) and ‘Gam Go’ (secondary officer in charge of family registration) in the body of family register. Considering their condition of omission and registration in total volumes of family register, the name of ‘Lee Jeong’ was omitted in 40% of total volumes and the name of ‘Gam Go’ was omitted in 36% of total volumes. Even though Lee Jeong and Gam Go were clearly stated as official position in charge of family registration in the end of family register, their names were frequently omitted for purpose. The frequency of omission in family register proves the fact that this kind of omission in family register was conducted intentionally and conventionally.
Furthermore, this study observes the phenomenon of omission and registration in two family register, with grasping autonym of adults in the body of these family register. 45 people, 22% of the whole adults who were registered in the 26th volume, were omitted in the 27th volume. In addition, 69 men, 30% of the whole adults who were not registered in the 26th volume, were newly registered in the 27th volume. Therefore, the total cases amounts to 114 people who were intentionally omitted or registered in two volumes of data for the family registration. Consequently, the principle of the family registration in Jeju-do was impractical not to allow any omission of one person or household. Therefore, intentional omission of person and household in the family register was frequently conducted in Jeju-do like any other region.

참고자료

· 없음