지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 한국역사연구회 역사와현실 역사와 현실 제122호
- 발행연도
- 2021.12
- 수록면
- 365 - 413 (49page)
- DOI
- 10.35865/YWH.2021.12.122.365
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Governor General office of Joseon was planning to establish land ownership rights in Joseon, and also recognize those rights as ‘Original acquisitions(原始取得),’ only through the so-called process of ‘inspections(査定),’ which were executive orders that resulted from the Joseon Land Survey Program. However, no other than the High Court, which harbored the highest legal authority in colonized Joseon, ruled that the land ownership rights established by judicial trials should also be recognized. This created a situation in which a piece of land could be subjected to both an ownership established by an executive order, and an ownership established by a judicial trial, at the same time.
This case was also noteworthy in the sense that it was an instance in which a Court of Justice would present an opinion that was different from that of an executive office ruling a colonized society. And the stance of the High Court in this case was also a deviation from the principle of ‘One right for one object(一物一權)’ and ‘One lord for one land(一地一主),’ as defined in the Old Civil Law(舊民法) which had been serving as the Primary law for the civil legal areas in colonized Joseon.
But at the same time, the High Court in Joseon was also part of the Governor General Office. The High Court did amend previous rulings through a Joint Session examination, and acknowledged the ultimate (and superior) legitimacy of the land ownership rights established by executive orders. The Court also limited the range of efficacy of the ownership rights established through judicial trials, rendering it a right which could simply not be used, profited from or disposed.
So, with the High Court’s decision in 1925, the conflict between sister organizations over the issue of establishing land ownership rights in Joseon was resolved, and the rights generated by the Joseon Land Survey Program were acknowledged and recognized as ‘Original acquisitions.’ The ‘Inspections,’ which enabled all this and now considered to be the beginning point of Korean land ownership rights, was in fact created by the Governor General office in Joseon, the quasi-state authority and an executive office which overpowered the judicial branch during the Japanese occupation period.
This case was also noteworthy in the sense that it was an instance in which a Court of Justice would present an opinion that was different from that of an executive office ruling a colonized society. And the stance of the High Court in this case was also a deviation from the principle of ‘One right for one object(一物一權)’ and ‘One lord for one land(一地一主),’ as defined in the Old Civil Law(舊民法) which had been serving as the Primary law for the civil legal areas in colonized Joseon.
But at the same time, the High Court in Joseon was also part of the Governor General Office. The High Court did amend previous rulings through a Joint Session examination, and acknowledged the ultimate (and superior) legitimacy of the land ownership rights established by executive orders. The Court also limited the range of efficacy of the ownership rights established through judicial trials, rendering it a right which could simply not be used, profited from or disposed.
So, with the High Court’s decision in 1925, the conflict between sister organizations over the issue of establishing land ownership rights in Joseon was resolved, and the rights generated by the Joseon Land Survey Program were acknowledged and recognized as ‘Original acquisitions.’ The ‘Inspections,’ which enabled all this and now considered to be the beginning point of Korean land ownership rights, was in fact created by the Governor General office in Joseon, the quasi-state authority and an executive office which overpowered the judicial branch during the Japanese occupation period.
목차
머리말
1. 토지소유권에 관한 사법적 분쟁의 시작
2. 분쟁의 재점화와 조선고등법원 연합부판결
3. 사법적 분쟁의 해소
맺음말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
일본과 식민지 조선에서 성립된 토지소유권의 성격 검토
개념과 소통
2021 .01
-
한말 일제 초 토지소유권 법령의 제정과 의미변화 - 조선총독부 고등법원의 해석을 중심으로 -
역사연구
2019 .06
-
谷口園 鄭象觀의 『史記』 애호와 그 의의 -｢讀馬史｣ 및 南漢朝와의 왕복 서한을 중심으로-
한국한문학연구
2024 .08
-
동아시아 각국에서 소유권의 법적 구성에 대한 일고찰 ? 자유, 제도 그리고 권리 ?
개념과 소통
2021 .01
-
量田史의 재검토― 벽사 이우성의 사적 토지소유론과 관련해서
대동문화연구
2023 .03
-
중국의 도시화와 공공토지 사유화
역사비평
2016 .08
-
중국의 이원적 토지소유 구조 하의 소재산권 주택(小产权房) 문제 연구
중국지식네트워크
2018 .01
-
For Whom the Line is Drawn: Korean Indigenous Conceptions of Boundary in the 19th Century and Changes in the Colonial Period
Korea Journal
2020 .12
-
중국소설 《西遊記》 번역본의 조선후기 유통에 관한 연구 : 영남대 소장 번역필사본을 중심으로
중국어문논역총간
2017 .01
-
1930년대 중후반 식민지 조선 금융기구 개편론의 전개와 함의
한국사연구
2020 .09
-
1915년 조선물산공진회에 나타난 식민 권력의 이미지 구축 시도 -미술관 전시를 중심으로
탐라문화
2020 .01
-
1919~1926년 朝鮮土地改良株式會社 설립 논의와 성격
한국독립운동사연구
2024 .08
-
일제초기 조선부동산 등기제도의 시행과 그 성격
한국민족문화
2015 .08
-
대한제국기 김가진의 충주지역 토지 소유와 의의
한국독립운동사연구
2017 .05
-
한말 일제초기 官契와 地券의 성격 검토
역사와 세계
2018 .12
-
柳宗悦の朝鮮理解の特質 ―朝鮮関連初期の著作を手がかりに―
일본문화학보
2020 .11
-
1920년대 開闢社의 조선지식 수집과 조선연구 토대 구축 - ‘조선문화 기본조사’의 추진과정과 내용 분석을 중심으로
역사연구
2019 .06
-
일제의 통계 조사와 조선인의 비판적 해석
사림
2015 .01
-
자가소유 사회의 한계 - 2010년 이후 영국의 자산기반 주택 정책
역사비평
2022 .05
-
1910~20년대 식민지 조선에서 개최된 공진회와 박람회의 성격
전북사학
2018 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0