남북 역사학(자) 교류와 역사인식의 공존을 향한 전망

정태헌(Jung, Tae-hern) 국제고려학회 서울지회 2009 국제고려학회 서울지회 논문집 Vol.12 No.-

The exchange between North and South Korean historians represents a seemingly small and yet very significant step toward the coexistence of different historical perceptions of the Korean history. Although somewhat limited at this moment, the exchange between the two, through its continuous progress, will contribute to the better understanding of each other by providing with the various prospects on the historical conception and background for the academic discussion. For the past ten years, the exchange between North and South Korean historians has extended to diverse areas, including the cosponsored academic conference, exhibition, preservation of the historical landmarks, and co-excavation. The level of the contents discussed during the exchange has also been developed drastically. The fundamental issue between the North and South Korea in the 21st century has already surpassed the ideological conflicts. Approached from a different angle than the power struggle between the North and the South, the objective condition has no other choices but to choose the coexistence and symbiosis at the crossroad of the war. To this end, the exchange between North and South Korean historians based on reconciliation and cooperation forms the base for the cultural communication. In fact, it has now been extended to the extent where the mutual understanding of the different historical concepts has been made instead of the mere exchange of the scholars. If North and South Korea succeed to manage the balance in their relationship and establish the peace treaty, not only the quality of their exchange categories will change but also shall the awareness of the coexistence of different historical perceptions be extended.

1998년 소떼방북, ‘21세기 한반도’ 대전환의 문을 연 메가이벤트

정태헌(Jung Tae-hern) 역사비평사 2015 역사비평 Vol.- No.112

Chung Ju-yung, an entrepreneur who made his first visit to North Korea on January 23, 1989, made his second visit to the Joint Security Area of Panmunjeom with five hundred head of cattle on June 16, 1998. He had worked for 20 years to find a way to link Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation with the Northern Economic Zone. This was not only for the purpose of instigating a new phase in Korea’s national history, but also for commercial profit. However, as Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation proceeded, South Korea came under the IMF Management System and North Korea had economic sanctions imposed by the US government. Because of this, only two projects among many were agreed to by both Koreas’ and initiated by Chung’s humanitarian visits with cattle; the Mt. Geumgang tour program and establishment of the Gaeseong Industrial Complex. The progress of Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation has fluctuated according to several factors, e,g., the global financial crisis, the short-sighted viewpoint of conservative forces in South Korea, US sanctions against North Korea, and the topdown management structure of the Hyundai Group. Therefore the question is, who has the authority and responsibility to stabilize Inter-Korean Economic Cooperation and of resolving these problems? The answer does not lie with the Hyundai company but with the President of South Korea who is ready to proceed with “the peaceful reunification of the fatherland” under the constitution.

한국의 근대 조세 100년사와 국가, 민주화, 조세 공평의 과제

정태헌(Jung Tae Hern) 역사비평사 2011 역사비평 Vol.- No.94

The contents and equity of modern taxation vary with the characteristic of state power and the level of democratization. During the Japanese colonial period, tax whose main items were land tax, consumption tax and income tax was used for the maintenance of colonial rule and costs of war the Japanese empire provoked. After the liberation from Japanese colonial rule, Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world and had to increase money supply or receive financial assistance because of the lack of source of taxation. In contemporary Korean history, major companies and rich people have had the benefit of low taxation. The Korean government have recovered from the Korean War by imposing heavy taxes on peasants and secured finances from mass taxation-consumption tax until 1987. However, the government had to face stiff resistance when it started to impose taxes on assets and capital income. Income tax contributed less to recovering from the financial crisis in 1997 than any other economic resource. It was not until the 2000s that the proportion of corporation tax increased. But the proportion of consumption tax is still high and the rate of assets and capital income tax is remarkably low, compared to that of wage income tax. To establish the democratic tax equity is the foundation for economic development.

조선총독부의 慶尙合同銀行 경영권 장악 과정과 일본인은행으로의 흡수

정태헌(Jung Tae-hern) 고려사학회 2010 한국사학보 Vol.- No.40

The Gyeongsang Amalgamated Bank was created as a result of the merger of the Daegu Bank and Gyeongnam Bank on July 31<SUP>st</SUP>, 1928. The bank's operational rights were eventually assumed by the Government-General of Joseon(Korea), with the end & result being its amalgamation with the Japanese-owned Hanseong Bank on October 1st, 1941. A look at the history of the Gyeongsang Amalgamated Bank exhibits some of the commonly found characteristics of banks owned by Joseon(Korea) nationals during the Japanese colonial period. More to the point, although Joseon people invested in the establishment of banks nationwide in the 1910s, these institutions became subject to mergers after their operational rights were assumed by the Government-General of Joseon during the 1920s. For instance, the Government-General of Joseon forced the Daegu and Gyeongnam Banks to merge in 1927 by employing a strategy that involved decreasing the funds available to Joseon-owned banks, thereby facilitating its ability to 'designate' the management group and ensure the presence of Japanese nationals within this group. Although shareholders such as Jeong Jaehak managed to drag negotiations on for two years, Yamada Naohide (山田直秀) was eventually able to grasp operational rights in September 1930. While Min Daesik and Ogura Takenosuke (小倉武之助) respectively became the largest shareholders in 1934 and 1939, the Gyeongsang Amalgamated Bank was nevertheless ultimately merged with the Hanseong Bank, thus ending its existence as a Joseon-owned bank.

조선철도에 대한 滿鐵 위탁경영과 총독부 直營으로의 환원 과정 및 배경

정태헌(Jung, Tae-Hern) 고려사학회 2015 한국사학보 Vol.- No.60

러일전쟁 후 만주를 ‘자기 땅’처럼 생각하던 일본 정부는 제1차 세계대전 말기에 ‘만선철도합동’ 방침 아래 만철의 조선철도 인수-병합을 내정했다. 그러나 열강 및 중국과의 관계를 고려해야 하는 상황에서 위탁경영으로 급전환되었다(1917.8). 위탁경영은 경영권과 납부금(만철→총독부) 측면에서 만철과 총독부 모두에게 불만스럽고 불안정한 것이었다. 그런데 제1차 세계대전 종전을 전후하여 일본의 중국지배정책에 대해 미국의 견제가 커졌고 영일동맹도 파기되었다. 일본은 영미와 대립을 피하기 위한 수세적 현상유지책을 취했다. 전후공황으로 자금난에 빠진 만철은 조선철도를 병합하여 인수액(정부 출자)에 대응하는 민간출자를 통해 증자(3억엔)하는 방식에 집착했다. 그러나 만주에서 불리해진 일본의 국제환경과 철도 경영권이 없어 ‘권위’가 크게 훼손되었다고 인식한 총독부의 반대로 성사되지 못했다. 이는 육군군벌의 정치적 영향력 약화, 입헌정우회 중심의 原敬내각의 성립으로 정당세력이 확대된 당시 일본 정계의 변화를 반영한다. 齋藤 총독 부임을 계기로 조선철도 직영론을 정립한 총독부는 일본의 효과적인 만주지배를 위해서도 허구적 ‘滿鮮정치통일론’에서 벗어나야 하고 조선철도망 완성의 과제를 더 이상 만철에게 맡길 수 없다는 점을 부각시켰다. 결국 일본정부는 1925년 4월 1일부터 조선철도를 총독부 직영으로 환원하기로 결정(1924.10)했다. 식민지자본주의의 ‘개발-수탈’체제 구축 수단으로서 독자적 조선철도정책의 중요성이 일본 정계에 비로소 공유된 것이다. 이러한 상황에서 1927년에 ‘조선철도 12년계획’이 시행될 수 있었다. The Japanese government which had regarded Manchuria as a portion of the Japanese national land after the Russo-Japanese war unofficially decided under the principle of joining the railways of Manchuria and Chosun that South Manchuria Railway would acquire and merge Chosun Railway at the end of World War One; however, this policy took a sudden turn for South Manchuria Railway to commit management to Chosun Railway in August 1917 having to ponder on relationships with the Western Powers and China. Still, both of South Manchuria Railway and the Japanese Government-general of Korea were dissatisfied with the trust management, and this was in disequilibrium in terms of the matter of control of the company and cost-bearing of South Manchuria Railway. Japan took defensive holing operations to avoid confrontations with Britain and the United States around the end of World War One when the United States curbed more and more Japanese invasion policy on China, and the Anglo-Japanese alliance was terminated. South Manchuria Railway which had indulged in financial difficulty because of the postwar recession was obsessed with the way to increase funds of 300 million yen from private investment and government investment by amalgamating Chosun Railway. However, this plan of South Manchuria Railway failed as the Japanese Government-general of Korea which had thought that the authority of the governor-general had been destroyed not having control of railways in Korea opposed it. It reflected the then changes of Japanese political world such as weakening of the army and expansion of political party forces. The Japanese Government-general of Korea formulated the policy of operating directly Chosun Railway after the new governor-general Saito, emphasizing to overcome a spurious idea of considering Manchuria and Chosun as a united political body for Japan to govern Manchuria effectively and contending that South Manchuria Railway should not assume the task of the completion of a railroad network in Korea any more. Finally, the Japanese government made a decision to return that the Japanese Government-general of Korea would manage directly Chosun Railway from April 1st, 1925 on October 1924. The result meant that an independent railway policy in Korea was considered significantly as a means to build ‘development-exploitation’ system of the colonial capitalism in Japanese political world; in the circumstances, a 12-year Chosun Railway plan could be implemented.

전시체제 초기 夢幻의 선전소재, 조선해협철도터널案 실상과 報道 실태

정태헌(Jung Tae-hern) 고려사학회 2021 한국사학보 Vol.- No.82

만주를 침략한 일본 육군은 세계 최초의 해저철도터널인 간몬(下關~門司)터널 건설을 밀어붙여 착공 계획을 확정하자마자 1935년 7월, 철도성과 내무성을 통해 ‘조선해협터널’ 계획안을 발표하도록 했다. 그러나 이는 기술수준, 재정적 뒷받침, 일본철도망과의 연결방법 등 구체성이 결여된 실현 불가능한 계획이었고, 일본철도망과의 궤간차이조차 고려하지 않은 미숙한 발상이었다. 1939년에 일본 혼슈 지역의 광궤(표준궤) 신간선 부설 계획과 조선해협터널을 연계시킨다는 구상이 제시되었지만 이후 다시 큐슈 지역의 협궤철도망을 연결역으로 설정하는 혼선을 벗어나지 못했다. 그러나 報國언론은 이 계획이 곧 이뤄질 것처럼 반복선전하면서 ‘현실’로 만들어 일본에서 시작되는 ‘興亞’교통망을 찬양했다. 어쩔 수 없이 계획의 실현 불가능함이 노출되자 선전 소재로서 페이퍼 계획의 용도가 폐기(1942년 중단)될 때까지는 성사시켜야 한다는 사명감과 정신승리를 강조했다. 부실한 지질조사만 간헐적으로 진행되면서 페이퍼 계획상 터널입・출구가 수시로 바뀌는 동안 곳곳에서 일어난 입・출구 유치 운동은 해당 지역은 물론 독자들에게 침략전쟁에 빠져들도록 분위기를 조성하는 데 일조했다. 터널계획은 일본이 침략전쟁에 승승장구하는 것으로 비춰졌던 전시체제 초기에 ‘과학일본’의 ‘웅대한 힘’을 과시하는 몽환의 정치 선전 소재로 기능했다. The Japanese Army, which invaded Manchuria, confirmed its plan to build the world’s first undersea railway tunnel called the Kanmon Tunnel(Simonoseki~Monji). Straight afterwards the Japanese Army announced plans for the Joseon Strait Railway tunnel through the Ministry of Railways and the Ministry of the Interior in July 1935. This plan was an immature idea of linking it to the narrow-gauge railway, the Kanmon Tunnel, without considering the specificity of technology, financial support, and a means of connection with the Japanese railway network led by the Army’s impatience. It was not until 1939 that the project changed to link it to the Joseon Strait Tunnel when the plan to replace the Japanese mainline railway with a broad-gauge railway (a standard rail line) was established. However, the plan for the new broad-gauge railway was suspended in 1943 due to the deterioration of the war situation. The plan for the Joseon Strait Tunnel was also suspended in 1942 after a poor and intermittent geological survey. The plan for the Joseon Strait Railway Tunnel did not go beyond the level of the desk plan. However, ‘patriotic media’ advertised the plan loudly as if it would be accomplished soon and praised the plan as a transportation network that makes science Japan’s Asia prosperous. While the entrance and exit of the tunnel frequently changed by desk plans, the entrance and exit installation movement occurring in Joseon and Japan contributed to creating an atmosphere buried in the illusion of a war of aggression. In the end, the Joseon Strait Tunnel plan, which had no substance, served as a dreamy political propaganda tool that only imprinted readers with mental victory, a sense of duty, and justification.

진보적 역사학의 상징,『역사비평』25년의 성과와 과제

정태헌(Jung, Tae-Hern) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.100

평화공존과 민주주의의 21세기를 위한 ‘병합’ 100년의 성찰

정태헌(Jung Tae-hern) 한국역사연구회 2010 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.76

인문학-역사학과 한국 근현대사에서의 정의(定義)

정태헌 ( Tae Hern Jung ) 고려대학교 한국사회연구소 2006 한국사회 Vol.7 No.2

민주화과정에 대한 비판적 성찰 ; 1980년대 민주화운동에서의 학원민주화 쟁취 사례 연구 -인천대 학생운동의 시각에서 본 선인학원 시,공립화 과정

정태헌 ( Tae Hern Jung ) 민주화운동기념사업회 2013 기억과 전망 Vol.0 No.28

When examining the South Korea democratization movement of the 1980s university democratization was a measure of the contents of larger reform. Since 1980, a year after its opening, Incheon University`s “Struggle for the Normalization of the University Foundation-University Autonomy Movement” would be done away with the inconsistent and make-shift management of the of the Ministry of Education. And the owner of the university who donated the university foundation to the state returned and led the school to a catastrophe. However, an unprecedented victory for the 1980s` struggle for democratization of the university, came at the end of a journey lasting 14 years in the form of Municipalization · Publicization of Seonin School Foundation in March of 1994. This was facilitated by a unique reason. Consistent struggle, popularization of Incheon University`s student movement whose target had been a “foundation without conditions” from beginning to end, made it possible a collective combination of most faculties and the power of the citizenry, and their harmonical role allotment.