식민지시기 근대적 이혼제도와 여성의 대응

Abstract

본 논문에서는 식민지시기에 나타난 근대적 이혼제도와 관념의 도입이라는 새로운 사회변화의 양상을 분석하고 이러한 변화에 다양한 방식으로 대응하여 간 여성들의 모습을 추적하고 그 의미를 밝히고자 하였다. 조선시대에도 혼인의 해소를 의미하는 이혼 현상은 존재하였으나, 國法에 이혼이 없다고 말해질 정도로 이혼을 억제하는 정책이 취해졌다. 남성은 七去之惡을 이유로 아내를 버릴 수 있었지만(棄妻), 여성은 이혼을 제기하는 것 자체가 범죄로서 처벌되었다. 이러한 조선 이래의 이혼법제와 관행은 식민지시기 근대적 이혼제도의 도입과 ‘자유이혼’의 관념이 유포되는 가운데 크게 변화하기 시작하였다. 1912년 朝鮮民事令을 제정한 일제는 이혼에 관해 관습에 의거하도록 규정하였다. 당시 『慣習調査報告書』에 규정된 관습은 재판이혼이나 협의이혼의 관습이 없고, 여성의 이혼청구권도 존재하지 않는다는 것이었다. 그러나 1910년대에는 협의이혼이 급격히 증가해 갔고, 재판이혼도 이미 1908년부터 허용되어 점차 증가하고 있었으며, 더욱이 그 청구자의 90% 이상이 관습에 청구권이 없다고 규정되었던 여성들이었다. 따라서 조사된 관습과 재판의 괴리 속에서 무엇이 관습인지 총독부의 입장이 번복되는 가운데 점차 재판이혼, 협의이혼, 여성청구권이 뒤늦게 인정되어 갔다. 결국 1922년 민사령 제2차 개정을 통해 재판이혼에 日本民法의 의용이 확정되는 가운데, 최종적으로 재판․협의이혼, 여성의 이혼청구권이 법조문에 의해 인정되기에 이른다. 1910년대 관습의 유무와 내용을 둘러싼 해석의 충돌 상황은 관습주의 채택 그 자체로 인한 피할 수 없는 현상이기도 했지만 여성들의 이혼청구에 대한 총독부의 대응과정으로부터 야기된 것이기도 했다. 재판이혼이나 여성청구권이 법적으로 제도화되기 이전부터 이미 여성들에 의해 요구되고 있었던 점은 이를 보여준다. 그런 면에서 근대적 이혼제도의 수용과 여성청구권의 허용을 지나치게 식민지 권력의 관습창출에 따른 정책적 산물로서 이해해온 기존의 인식은 재고될 필요가 있다. 그러나 관습변화론이 상정하듯이, 1910년대 분출되었던 여성들의 이혼요구가 일제에 의해서 ‘新慣習’으로서 그대로 추인되었던 것은 아니었다. 〈惡疾〉 및 〈性不具〉를 이유로 한 이혼소송 판결에서 드러나듯이 1910년대 터져 나온 여성들의 다양한 요구는 일제의 정책적 통제에 의해서 일본 민법체제라는 틀에 맞추어 조절, 수렴되고 있었음은 이를 보여준다. 즉, 이혼제도가 도입된 지 10여년 만에 나타난 관습법으로부터 일본민법으로의 전환이라는 법적 변화는 재판제도를 통해 자신의 삶을 변화시키고자 했던 여성들의 적극적인 행위에 의해 추동되었고, 그것을 일본민법의 틀 내로 수렴하기 위한 일제의 정책적인 노력이 개입됨으로써 이루어진 ‘상호작용’의 산물이었다고 할 수 있다. 재판이혼이 점차 수용되는 가운데 1910년대 90%를 상회할 정도로 압도적이었던 여성원고의 비율은 1920년대 중반이후 남성원고의 증가로 그 비율이 감소하였다. 그러나 식민지시기 전반에 걸쳐 본다면 여성원고가 남성원고보다 더 많았던 것으로 추정된다. 이혼소송의 여성원고는 지식이나 경제력이 있었던 소위 ‘신여성’ 혹은 중상층 여성들뿐만 아니라 ‘구여성’및 하층 여성들도 다수 포함하고 있었다. 여성들은 남편이나 시부모로부터의 학대와 모욕, 남편의 범죄에 따른 복역이나 生死不明, 遺棄 등을 이유로 이혼을 청구하고 있었다. 그리고 법정 소송을 통해 새로운 판례를 이끌어냄으로써 가족 내의 젠더질서를 새롭게 구축하는 주체로서 가시화되고 있었다. 그러나 전반적으로 여성원고가 많았던 상황은 여성의 권리사상 증가를 드러내는 것이기도 하지만, 역으로 남편에 의한 강제적인 이혼과 ‘棄妻’가 여전히 광범하게 나타나고 있었던 상황을 반영하는 것이었다. 여전히 지속되었던 이혼을 금기시하는 전통적인 도덕관념과 이혼의 자유를 억제하였던 일본민법의 이혼 조항, 貞操관념 등 다양한 이유로 인해 제도화된 이혼으로 수렴되지 않는 기처, 소박, 가출과 같은 비제도적 이혼이 양산되고 있었고, 이혼으로부터 비롯한 갈등으로 자살, 방화, 배우자 살해사건도 자주 발생하고 있었다. 근대적 이혼제도의 수용은 前近代的 관행을 대체하는 방식으로 이루어지지 않고 오히려 전근대적 관행이었던 기처와 소박 등을 양산하는 방식으로 이루어지고 있었다. 여성들의 이혼제기는 1910년대까지도 ‘背夫행위’로서 도덕적으로 단죄되었다. 여성의 이혼청구가 ‘개성의 자각’이라는 긍정적인 의미로 해석되기 시작한 것은 ‘자유이혼론’이 확산되어 간 1910년대 후반부터였다. 그러나 조혼과 강제결혼을 거부하고 결혼에서의 자유를 확보하려는 신지식층 남성들의 요구에 의해 제기된 1920~30년대의 ‘자유이혼’은 그들의 조혼한 본처인 중상층 ‘구여성’들에게는 ‘강제이혼’으로 다가왔다. 여성의 재혼이 여전히 어렵고 경제적 자립도 쉽지 않은 상황에서 이들 ‘구여성’에게 이혼은 신지식층 남성과 달리 ‘자유로운’것이 될 수 없었기 때문이다. 그러나 ‘이혼논쟁’에 의해 희생자로서 이미지화되었던 ‘구여성’들은 단순히 희생자로만 남아 있지 않았고, 본처의 지위를 사수하기 위한 법정 투쟁 등 다양한 방식으로 저항하고 있었다. 또한 이혼을 요구하는 여성들도 점차 나타나고 있었다. 이러한 ‘구여성’의 이혼수용은 단순히 남편의 이혼강요를 수동적으로 받아들이는 것은 아니었고, 봉건적 가족제도와 억압적인 부부관계에 대한 직접적인 경험 속에서 축적된 구체적인 각성과정을 통해 얻은 자각의 결과였다. 남편의 蓄妾이나 重婚으로 인한 학대와 遺棄는 식민지시기 여성들이 이혼이나 위자료를 청구하기 위해 법정소송으로 나아갔던 주요한 원인 중 하나였다. 남녀에게 달랐던 불평등한 간통죄 조항으로 축첩은 이혼의 사유로 인정되지 않았고, 법률혼주의로 인해 형사법상 중혼죄가 유명무실화된 상태에서 남편들의 축첩과 중혼은 법적 제재 없이 양산될 수 있었다. 이러한 상황에서 여성들은 남성에게 정조를 요구하고, 중혼이나 詐欺結婚으로 유린당한 정조에 대해 위자료를 청구하는 법정소송에 나서고 있었다. 그동안 여성에게만 강요되어 온 정조의 의무를 남성에게까지 확장하고, 정조를 권리로써 주장하는 여성들의 요구는 기존의 성도덕에 균열을 일으키면서 불평등한 가부장적 질서 속에 구속받던 여성들에게 투쟁을 위한 새로운 무기를 제공하고 있었다. 그러나 이러한 여성들의 투쟁은 보수적인 정조관념에 대한 발본적인 도전이 되지 못했다. 축첩을 本妻에 대한 〈중대한 모욕〉으로서 인정하였던 일본과 달리 조선에서는 이러한 본처들의 요구는 부정되었다. 여성들의 계속적인 청구 속에서 축첩이 원칙으로 본처에 대한 중대한 모욕이 되지 않는다는 견해에서 축첩은 원칙으로 본처에 대한 중대한 모욕이 되나 특별한 사정으로 축첩하는 경우에는 이혼원인이 되지 않는다는 견해로 점차 진전되어 갔지만, 해방될 때까지도 축첩만으로는 중대한 모욕으로 인정되지 않았다. 이렇게 남성 정조에 제재를 가할 법적 조치가 마련되지 못한 상태에서 ‘男女貞操共守論’은 현실에서 여성에게 정조를 강요하기 위한 도구로서 기능하는 측면이 있었고, ‘貞操蹂躪論’은 여전히 정조를 절대시함으로써 오히려 기존의 정조론을 강화하는 측면이 있었다. 남성이 정조를 안 지킨다고 해서 여성까지 그렇게 하면 결국 몸을 버리고 일생을 망치는 것은 여성뿐이니 정조를 지켜야한다는 현실론이 강화되고 있었음은 이를 보여준다. 또한 남편과 시부모로부터의 폭력 역시 여성들의 주된 이혼청구원인이었다. 남편과 시부모에 의한 폭력은 경미한 폭력으로부터 ‘私刑’ 혹은 ‘惡刑’이라 불렸던 극단적이고 심각한 폭력에 이르기까지 다양하게 나타나고 있었다. 구타와 폭력은 훈계와 가르침이라는 미명하에 가부장적 권위체계에 대한 아내와 며느리의 복종을 이끌어내기 위한 기제였다. 남편이나 시부모의 폭력행위에 노출된 여성들은 순종과 인내를 강요당하였기 때문에 운명과 팔자로 치부하고 견디는 경우가 많았다. 그러나 이혼청구권과 남편과 시부모에 대한 형사고소가 허용되는 가운데 여성들은 점차 남편과 시부모의 폭력행사에 맞서 법정소송을 제기하기 시작했다. 남편과 시부모의 폭력이 동거할 수 없는 학대와 중대한 모욕이라는 아내들의 주장은 증거불충분 등의 이유로 사실로서 인정되지 않는 경우가 많았다. 또, 사실로서 인정된다 하더라도 남편들은 ‘흥분 끝에 몇 차례 때린 사소한 폭력’이거나 ‘아내나 며느리가 반성하도록 하기 위한 인정상 당연한 폭력’으로서 이혼원인이 될 수 없다고 주장하였다. 승패소를 거듭한 소송들을 통해 남편과 시부모의 폭력이 아내와 며느리에 대한 학대와 모욕이라는 판결이 내려지기도 했다. 이러한 성과는 단순히 재판부의 판결로부터 기인하는 것이 아니라, 패소판결에도 불구하고 포기하지 않고 재판정에서 끝까지 싸워 결국 승소 판결을 얻어내었던 이름 없는 여성들로부터 비롯되었던 것이다. 요컨대, 근대적 이혼제도와 관념의 수용은 그 자체로 여성들에게 새로운 기회와 가능성을 제공하였지만, 그 과정은 순탄한 것이 아니었다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 여성들은 ‘신여성’뿐만 아니라 ‘구여성’ 혹은 하층 여성들조차 새로운 변화에 대응하는 가운데, ‘역사적 행위자’로서 자신을 드러내고 있었다. 여성들은 남편들에게 부양의 책임을 묻고 정조의 의무를 부과하거나 가부장적 권한으로 폭넓게 허용되어 온 남편과 시부모의 폭력을 고발하는 등 다양한 방식으로 자신의 이해를 관철하기 위해 법정 소송도 마다하지 않았다. 이러한 여성들의 행위는 반드시 근대적이고 여성해방적인 의식으로부터 기인하였던 것은 아니었고, 그 실천의 의미도 근대/전근대 혹은 저항/순응이라는 이분법적 사고로 해석되기 어려운 다층적인 면모를 포함하고 있었다. 이러한 여성들의 행위는 식민지 이혼법의 개정을 추동할 만큼 조선사회에 새로운 파장을 일으키면서 새로운 가족상과 부부규범의 형성에 영향을 미쳤다.|The divorce legislation and practices since the Choseon Dynasty period, when divorce was extremely suppressed and divorce claim was not given to women, experienced many changes as a modern divorce system was introduced and the idea of free divorce spread in the Japanese colonial period. In such process of change, not only the “new women,” who had been noted in the meantime, but also the “old fashioned women” or low-class women were deeply involved as “historical actors,” not simply as “victims” or “bystanders”. In spite of the divorce regulations of the Choseon Civil General Act in 1912 that regulated to be in accordance to the customs, the numbers of divorce by consent and divorce by trial that were denied by customs investigation in the 1910’s increased gradually, and women’s divorce claim became permitted steadily. In the end, the Japanese Government General of Korea recognized divorce by trial and consent through the second revision of the Choseon Civil General Act in 1922 and confirmed the literal application of the Japanese civil law to divorce by trial. Such legal transition was not just a political product due to the creation of customs by the Japanese Government General of Korea that adopted assimilation. The situation where the number of women’s requests for divorce increased and the fact that more than 90% of divorce suits were female plaintiff, preceding a legal institutionalization, show this well. However, as the customs change theories postulate, women’s requests for divorce, which erupted during the 1910’s, were not ratified intactly as “new custom” by the Japanese Government General of Korea. As the ruling for a divorce case that had “sexually impotent” as its reason shows, women’s various requests became adjusted and converged according to the frame of Japanese civil law system by Japan’s political control. In other words, the change of the divorce law, which was the conversion from the customary law to the Japanese civil law, was driven by the active actions of the women who requested divorce, and it was the product of “interaction” that was achieved as Japan’s political efforts to converge those actions into the frame of its civil code intervened. As divorce by trial was gradually accepted, the ratio of female plaintiff, which was overwhelming as it exceeded 90% in the 1910’s, decreased due to the increase of male plaintiff since the mid-1920’s. However, when taking a look at the overall of the colonial period, it is estimated that the number of female plaintiff was higher than that of male plaintiff. Female plaintiffs of divorce suits included not only so-called “new women” but also “old fashioned women” and not only upper-middle-class women, but also low-class women. Women requested divorce for reasons like abuse and offense from their husbands or parents-in-law, husbands in the service or missing, and abandonment and such. As they drew new precedents through legal suits, they were becoming visualized as the main agent that newly constructed gender order within family. However, the circumstances where there were more female plaintiff in overall shows the increase of the ideas on women’s rights; yet, in reverse, it also reflects the circumstances that compulsory divorce by husband and abandonment of wife still occurred extensively. Non-institutional divorces like abandonment of wife, getting deserted by husband, and running away from home, which were not converged as institutionalized divorces because of various reasons such as a sense of virtue, traditional moral sense that still continued to regard divorce as a taboo, and the Japanese Civil Code’s provision for divorce causes that repressed the freedom of divorce, were mass-produced. Also, suicide, arson, and murdering of spouse as conflicts due to divorce occurred often. Acceptance of modern divorce system was not done in the way of replacing pre-modern practices, but rather in the way of mass-producing abandonment of wife and getting rid of wife that were the pre-modern practices. Women’s filing divorce was punished morally as “betraying husband” until the 1910’s. Interpreting women’s divorce claim positively as ‘realization of personality’ began in the late 1910’s, when the idea of free divorce began to spread. However, “free divorce” during the period from the 1920’s to 1930’s, which was brought up by the new intellectual men, who wanted to secure freedom from marriage, rejected early marriage, and forced marriage, came as “forced divorce” to the upper-middle-class, “old fashioned women,” who were their lawful wives and whom they were married early. It was because, in the circumstances where the remarriage of women was difficult and financial independence not easy, divorce could not be something “free,” to the old fashioned women, unlike the new intellectual men. However, the old fashioned women, who were pictured as the victims by ‘divorce controversy,’ did not simply stay as the victims and resisted in various ways such as court battles for defending the positions as lawful wives. Also, the number of the women who demanded divorce gradually increased. Old fashioned women’s such acceptance of divorce was not taking their husbands’ divorce demand passively; rather, it was the result of awakening gained through the process of specific awakening that was accumulated from the direct experiences on the feudal family system and repressive husband-wife relationship. Abuse and abandonment due to having a concubine or bigamy were some of the major reasons why the women filed law suits to claim divorce or alimony in the colonial period. Keeping a concubine was not recognized as a reason for divorce because of the adultery provision that was unequal to men and women. As penal bigamy became nominal because of the legal marriage doctrine, keeping a concubine and bigamy of husbands were mass-produced without legal restriction. In such circumstances, women demanded fidelity from husbands and filed law suits that claimed alimony for their chastity that was abused by bigamy or fraud marriage. Women’s demands that expanded the responsibility of fidelity, which had been only requested of women, to men and that asserted chastity as a right caused fissures to the existing sexual morality and provided new weapons to the fight of women, who had been confined by the patriarchal rules that were unequal. However, women’s such fight could not become a radical challenge against the conservative concept of chastity. Unlike Japan that recognized keeping a concubine as a “severe insult to the extent of inability to live together” to lawful wives, such demands of lawful wives were denied in Choseon. Amidst women’s continuous demands, the opinion that keeping a concubine was not a severe insult to lawful wives by principle gradually changed to the one that keeping a concubine was a severe insult to lawful wife by principle and that it could not be a reason for divorce in case of keeping a concubine due to a special reason. However, keeping a concubine itself was not recognized as a severe insult even until the emancipation. In such circumstances where there were no legal actions that could impose sanctions on men’s chastity, the argument of men and women keeping the chastity together had the aspect of functioning as tool for demanding chastity from women in reality. And the argument of chastity violation had rather the aspect of strengthening the existing chastity argument by absolutizing chastity. It shows that the realism, which said that women should keep the chastity because women were the ones whose bodies and lives were destroyed if she did not do so just because men did not keep the chastity, strengthened. Also, violence from husband and parents-in-law was the major reason for filing a divorce. It was diverse from minor to extreme and serious violence that was called either “private punishment” or “severe punishment.” Under the name of discipline and teaching, beating and violence were the mechanisms for drawing submission of wife and daughter-in-law towards the patriarchal authority system. Since the women who were exposed to the violence of their husbands and parents-in-laws were compelled to submit and be patient, most of the time, they endured it, thinking that it was their fate and destiny. However, women began to file lawsuits against the violent acts of their husbands and parents-in-laws while criminal charges against husband and parents-in-law and divorce claim were permitted. Many times, the wives’ arguments that the violence from their husbands and parents-in-laws was severe offense and abuse with which they could not live were not recognized as facts due to insufficient evidence. Although they were recognized as facts, husbands argued that it could not be the cause of divorce because it was “minor beating after excitement” or “reasonable beating so that wife or daughter-in-law would self-reflect.” Through the lawsuits that repeated victories and defeats, violence of husband and parents-in-law was ruled as abuse and offence against wife and daughter-in-law, and such accomplishment did not simply result from the court’s ruling, but began from nameless women who gained the favorable judgment after fighting until the end at the courtroom without giving up in spite of losing the suits. For example, not only the “new women” but also “old fashioned women” and even low-class women, played important roles as active historical actors in the process of accepting the modern diverse system and idea. Women held their husbands responsible for supporting the family and imposed the duty of fidelity. And they were willing to file law suits in order to accomplish their interests in diverse methods such as reporting the violence of husband and parents-in-law, which had been widely permitted as the patriarchal authority. Such actions of women did not always result from the awareness that was modern and women-emancipatory, and also the meaning of the practice included multi-layered aspects that were hard to be analyzed with dichotomy of modern/pre-modern or resistance/adaptation. Such actions of women influenced the development of new family image and married couple’s standards.; The divorce legislation and practices since the Choseon Dynasty period, when divorce was extremely suppressed and divorce claim was not given to women, experienced many changes as a modern divorce system was introduced and the idea of free divorce spread in the Japanese colonial period. In such process of change, not only the “new women,” who had been noted in the meantime, but also the “old fashioned women” or low-class women were deeply involved as “historical actors,” not simply as “victims” or “bystanders”. In spite of the divorce regulations of the Choseon Civil General Act in 1912 that regulated to be in accordance to the customs, the numbers of divorce by consent and divorce by trial that were denied by customs investigation in the 1910’s increased gradually, and women’s divorce claim became permitted steadily. In the end, the Japanese Government General of Korea recognized divorce by trial and consent through the second revision of the Choseon Civil General Act in 1922 and confirmed the literal application of the Japanese civil law to divorce by trial. Such legal transition was not just a political product due to the creation of customs by the Japanese Government General of Korea that adopted assimilation. The situation where the number of women’s requests for divorce increased and the fact that more than 90% of divorce suits were female plaintiff, preceding a legal institutionalization, show this well. However, as the customs change theories postulate, women’s requests for divorce, which erupted during the 1910’s, were not ratified intactly as “new custom” by the Japanese Government General of Korea. As the ruling for a divorce case that had “sexually impotent” as its reason shows, women’s various requests became adjusted and converged according to the frame of Japanese civil law system by Japan’s political control. In other words, the change of the divorce law, which was the conversion from the customary law to the Japanese civil law, was driven by the active actions of the women who requested divorce, and it was the product of “interaction” that was achieved as Japan’s political efforts to converge those actions into the frame of its civil code intervened. As divorce by trial was gradually accepted, the ratio of female plaintiff, which was overwhelming as it exceeded 90% in the 1910’s, decreased due to the increase of male plaintiff since the mid-1920’s. However, when taking a look at the overall of the colonial period, it is estimated that the number of female plaintiff was higher than that of male plaintiff. Female plaintiffs of divorce suits included not only so-called “new women” but also “old fashioned women” and not only upper-middle-class women, but also low-class women. Women requested divorce for reasons like abuse and offense from their husbands or parents-in-law, husbands in the service or missing, and abandonment and such. As they drew new precedents through legal suits, they were becoming visualized as the main agent that newly constructed gender order within family. However, the circumstances where there were more female plaintiff in overall shows the increase of the ideas on women’s rights