<Seohaengrok> and <Yeonhangga> are itinerary based works described according to the flow of time. However, there are some parts where composition of the place of one’s sojourn is rearranged, but it is not a imple break-up of the flow of time. In particular, in <Seohaengrok>, it is confirmed that the chronological structure is kept as much as possible in the part of rearrange of the place of one’s sojourn. Meanwhile, <Yeonhangga> consists of 3 different levels of knowledge and experiences at Yeongeong. Firstly, it described the location movement from Forbidden City(Yeongyeong) with its center to the surroundings. Secondly, it gives more specific description which was not remarked in <Seohaengrok>. Thirdly, it described event focused description beyond a simple meaning of place of one’s sojourn. In this sense, it is fair to remark to reconsider the perspectives that the rearranged parts of the place of one’s sojourn is a simple break-up of a narrative.
Different from <Seohaengrok>, <Yeonhangga> attempted to systematize its structure. Hongsunhak planned <Yeonhangga> which is different from <Seohaengrok>. Nonetheless, some parts of <Yeonhangga> cited contents of <Seohaengrok>. Those included part where complicated expression is required, part where expressive beauty is shown at <Seohaengrok> or part where filial duty to parents is concentrated. While some have complete coincidence, others are modified. In particular, when the purpose is to deliver a complicated target, the coincidence in contents is high, and when the author attempted to add expression with descriptive manner, there are many modifications to maximize the effect of expression.
<Seohaengrok> and <Yeonhangga> had high coincidence of itinerary and <Yeonhangga> adopted some contents from <Seohaengrok> which resulted in similarity of contents of the two. However, as the authors and travels were different, it is noteworthy to focus on its differences. The history description of <Seohaengrok> is mainly focusing on domestic history, and the description is nothing more than the confirmation of historical factor. To the contrary, the history description of <Yeonhangga> had an intention to express own idea and reflection by finding meaning of history. In particular, as for the history of Myung, and Qing, it demonstrated the differentiation with <Seohaengrok> clearly by showing his own loyalty for Myung Dynasty. In <Seohaengrok>, part of showing homesickness focused on a recital of one’s own sufferings due to the fatigue of traveling, and the author described his suffering specifically and frankly. Such tendency could be his personal character but it also is related to his social status.
Meanwhile, <Yeonhangga> stressed loneliness away from home and filial duty to parents instead of the fatigue of traveling. That is a clearly different point from <Seohaengrok>. And, the description of a recital of one’s own sufferings is nothing serious compared with <Seohaengrok> and is described lightly from the perspective of an observer. While Hongsunhak was young, he had different social status from Kimzisu which was expressed in the work.