The case of Yuelin(月林), a female abbess of the Chongxing Temple in Beijing, suing 李榮氏 and others for fraudulent extortion(訛詐) of temple property(廟産) (hereafter referred to as the “Chongxing Temple property Case”) is an unusual case that began in the Qing reign and ended in the first year of the Republic of China (1912). The case went through traditional police institutions such as the Gendarmerie(步軍統領衙門) and newer judicial institutions established as part of the late Qing judicial reforms, and during the course of the trial, the Qing dynasty collapsed and the Republic of China was established. It also contains the first judgment of the Daliyuan(大理院) Civil Affairs Court (1912.9.19), the earliest civil case to be adjudicated by the highest judicial body, the Daliyuan. This article takes the relevant volumes of 󰡔北洋政府檔案󰡕 卷34 as the main source, and reconstructs the actual picture of the case by referring to the laws, regulations, and arrangements of the time.
At the beginning of the case, there was an overlap of jurisdiction between the Inner City Patrol Right Division(內城巡警右分廳), Capital Primary Court(京師初級審判廳), and Gendarmerie(步軍統領衙門), which were not in a hierarchical relationship and had different origins and functions. This is a result of the spatial specificity of Beijing combined with the temporal specificity of the Xinzheng(新政) period. In the middle of the case, there is a shift to a four-level, three-judge system, which means that the courts are hierarchical, have unified authority, and have the power to make judgments final.
Apart from the change in the judicial system, I looked at the hearing process and the basis of the judgment in the actual proceedings. I traced the legal basis for the reversal of previous judgments by the Inland Regional Court of Appeals and the Higher Court of Appeals, as well as the legal basis for the 8th grade penalty(8等罰) for Doing What Ought Not to Be Done(不應爲), in the form of a traditional Code of Law “Current Criminal Law of Qing Dynasty(大淸現行刑律)”. In the case of the agency and the High Court of Appeals, not only legislation but also the existence of civil customs such as Old Deeds(老契) were the basis of the judgment. They corrected the wrong facts of the lower courts through cross-examination. In addition, modern legal terms introduced from the West, such as “ne bis in idemunity(一事不再理)” and “good faith(善意)” were used to write down judgments, but the substance of the judgment was not completely different from the traditional one. It can be seen that the enforceability of civil lawsuits was not guaranteed due to various problems, and this was a factor that made the resolution of the case incomplete.
Although the case had the substance of a traditional Qing property dispute, it was litigated within the framework of the modern judicial system, which was in its infancy at the time. However, the fact that the four-level, three-judge system was fully applied from beginning to end despite the early introduction of the modern judicial system and laws, and the fact that the transitional law Current Criminal Law of Qing Dynasty was used as the basis for the judgment, shows the will of the Qing dynasty and the judicial system to implement the new system. Considering that the four-level, three-judge system was not universally implemented outside of the capital at this time, the Chongxing Temple property case can be seen as a relatively advanced case in the implementation of the new system. This particularity stems from the fact that it was a ‘capital’ case, a testing ground for the new judicial system. However, despite the advancement in the implementation of the system, its substance has not yet gone beyond the substance of traditional property disputes. The case is significant because it illustrates the transitional nature of civil litigation ...

1 허혜윤, "민간계약문서로 본 중국의 토지거래관행" 학고방 2018

2 박민수, "首都 北京의 州縣 행정― 明末ㆍ淸初 京縣의 운영을 중심으로 ―" 동양사학회 (140) : 369-413, 2017

3 林相範, "近代中國에서 首都警察의 成立―1901년부터 1928년까지 北京을 중심으로―" 동양사학회 82 : 2-62, 2003

4 劉昕傑, "近代中國基層司法中的批詞研究" 2011

5 鄭鶴聲, "近世中西史日對照表" 中華書局 1981

6 滋賀秀三, "續淸代中國の法と裁判" 創文社 2009

7 岡田朝太郎, "清末民國法律史料叢刊京師法律學堂筆記-法院編制法" 上海人民出版社 2013

8 李典蓉, "清朝京控制度硏究" 上海古籍出版社 2011

9 淸史稿校註編纂小組, "清史稿校注" 國史館 1991

10 渡辺修, "清代の歩軍統領衙門について" 41 (41): 1981

11 박민수, "淸의 入關과 旗人의 北京 移住 硏究" 서울대학교 2017

12 懷效鋒, "淸末法制變革史料, 上下卷" 中國政法大學出版社 2010

13 조병식, "淸末 新政期 경찰의 사법 기능 — 天津 경찰의 사례를 중심으로 —" 중국근현대사학회 (90) : 1-34, 2021

14 조병식, "淸末 新政期 天津審判廳 硏究" 서울대학교 2021

15 臨時台灣舊慣調查會, "淸國行政法 7" 汲古書院 1910

16 熊玲, "淸代婦女訴訟問題硏究" 西南大学 2020

17 那思陸, "淸代中央司法審判制度" 北京大学出版社 2004

18 허혜윤, "淸代 土地典賣관행과 분쟁" 중국근현대사학회 (50) : 19-34, 2011

19 周振想, "法學大辭典" 上海人民出版社 2014

20 卲琪, "民間習俗與國家法律-1912-1949年華北鄕村土地買賣硏究" 四川大學出版社 2018

21 朱采眞, "民國法律大辭典" 世界書局 1931

22 김택경, "民國時期 步軍統領衙門의 존속과 폐지 -북경 경찰기구 통합의 관점에서-" 중국사학회 (119) : 185-212, 2019

23 劉殷男, "民初廟產糾紛的法律與裁判探討-以大理院判決爲中心" 2020

24 寺田浩明, "權利與冤抑" 清華大學出版社 2012

25 林端, "性別, 宗教, 種族, 階級與中國傳統司法-中央研究院歷史語言研究所會議論文集之十二" 中央研究院歷史語言研究所 2013

26 玉雪, "從八旗駐防到地方行政制度-以淸代盛京八旗駐防制度的嬗變爲中心" 3 : 2007

27 書記廳, "大理院判決錄(民事) 1"

28 "司法公報"

29 中國第二歷史檔案館, "北洋政府檔案, 卷34" 中國檔案出版社 2016

30 北京圖書館金石組, "北京圖書館藏中國歷代石刻拓本匯編, 第57冊" 中州古籍出版社 1990

31 "京師內外城詳細地圖"

32 韓延龍, "中國近代警察史 上" 社會科學文獻出版社 2000

33 山本英史, "中國近世法制史料讀解ハンドブック" 東洋文庫 2019

34 張晉藩, "中國法律的傳統與近代轉型" 法律出版社 1997

35 滋賀秀三, "中國法制史論集-法典と刑罰" 創文社 2003

36 楊一凡, "中國法制史考證 乙編 第二卷" 中國社會科學出版社出版 2003

37 朱勇, "中國民法近代化研究" 中國政法大學出版社 2006

38 Xiangyu Hu, "The Juridical System of the Qing Dynasty in Beijing(1644-1900)" University of Minnesota 2011