The existing studies on a relationship between the Yamato political power and many countries on the Korean Peninsula have a tendency that has been putting more emphasis on the establishment of what 'Imnailbonbu', meaning the department of Japan in the region of Imna, which intensively appeared in the frist half of the 6th century was than on a question of the control of the Yamato administration over the southern region of the peninsula that 『Ilbonseogi』has delivered. However, because 'Imnailbonbu' appeared on the premise of the control of the Yamato over the southern part of the peninsula since before the 6th century, it is clear that whether the peninsula can affect the difference in understanding of what the question is characteristic of. Therefore, I primarily set the main part which conquered and governed the southern nations on the peninsula in the article of the period of Shingonggi 49(369) explaining the beginning and cause of the control of the Yamato administration over the territory. As a consequence of it, I could understand the southern conquest of King Gunchogo of Baekje was changed from a principal party in the process of publishing of 『Ilbonseogi』into the fact that the Yamato conquered the many nations on the peninsula. Therefore, the territory the Yamato granted to Baekje can be also understood the fact that the advances of Baekje were changed into a grant of the Yamato administraion. Although there was a case where the Yamato continually granted Baekje the territory since then, a grant of a territory in the 『Ilbonseogi』reflects two types of it. As one of them, there is a case where Baekje received a land suffering disputes within the peninsula, in which Baekje's advances in this region were described as a grant of the Yamato. While I can understand that the another case of the grant in the process of political competitions between Baekje and the Yamato does indicate that a concept of 『Ilbonseogi』that the Yamato ruled the Korean peninsula, not the advances of Baekje. Therefore, although 『Ilbonseogi』describes that the Yamato mainly led a relationship with Baekje through a territory grant, the relationship between both nations was not maintained as the medium of the territory grant, and the relationship between the Yamato and Baekje could be understood as the fact that both countries had maintained continually friendly until the collapse of Baekje. For one thing, in the late 4th century, since negotiations as the medium of Wishinge(goods) and ironware, a method of continual dispatch and stay of royal families (to Wae) allows that a policy of Baekje became a channel of delivering to the Yamato. While in the 5th century, it continually maintained a policy complying with a demand of the ruling caste, like delivering intellectuals for developments of internal departments of the Yamato. On the basis of such a relationship, in the 6th century, by running a system, called 'Yongbyung', meaning a relationship of mercenary, dispatching many doctors(and teachers), and furthermore disseminating Buddhism and delivering men and merchandise related to the religion, the relation was maintained, I could understand. While 『Ilbonseogi』largely describes the relationship between the Yamato and Baekje as a question of territory grant, it features that the relation with Shilla is delineated as a target of a continual conquest. For one thing, since the conquest of Shilla by 'the empress Shingong', Shilla is described as a tributary of the Yamato, and before the period of 'Gyechegi', on the premise that Shilla did not comply with duties as a tributary, conquests and punishing questions were performed, it said. However, after reviewing the articles relating to it, the conquests of Shilla in the period of Shingonggi were made in the process of publishing『Ilbonseogi』 and I looked over the articles as to the conquest since then also re-changed the articles relating to salvation of Imna by Baekje as a principal force and the salvation of Shilla into the salvation of the Yamato administration. However, on the premise that the Yamato ruled Imna, the relationship against Shiila from the period of Gechegi to before the period of Hummyunggi 23 when the region of Imna was completely annexed to Shilla contained a rebuilding of the southern Gala that Shilla destroyed and ruined and from the late period of Heummynggi since a complete annexation through the Chugozo, the articles about the conquest of Shilla for the aim of the restoration of the region of Imna. However, such a start of conquest of Shilla lies from the period of Singonggi Therefore, 'the conquest of Shilla' of the Yamato is wrong with the premise itself. Besides, from the late period of Hummyung, there are the articles about running the continual negotiations with Goguryeo, Shilla, besides Baekje and there also exist the articles containing the Yamato got Shilla to pay for 'tax of the region of Imna'. However, I have gone over the latter is nothing more than a logic of 『Ilbonseogi』bearing no relation to historical facts, and an array of historical sources where the heralds of Imna paid tribute (to the Yamato) with heralds of Shilla also came from further logic that the Yamato governed the region of Imna. Therefore, the relationship between the Yamato and Shilla since the period of Hummyunggi should be understood as not a logic of 'conquest', but a negotiation. Consequently, in the period between the 4th and the 6th century before the negotiations between the Yamato and Shilla assumed activity, as Baekje and the Yamato maintained a friendly relationship, the relationship with Shilla of the Yamato could not help but follow such trend, depending on changes in the relationship between Baekje and Shilla. However, since the middle 6th century, as all the three nations maintained negotiations with the Yamato as the medium of men and merchandise related to Buddhism, the relationship between the Yamato and Shilla should be understood as equal negotiating relations, not conquests. On the other hand, 『Ilbonseogi』, on the premise that the Yamato ruled the region of Imna, described that the Yamato dispatched generals of Wae to Imna or stationed forces of Wae there. Therefore, the understanding of people of Wae working in Imna is key to the understanding of relationship between the Yamato and Imna. First of all, I could understand Mokmanchi 『Ilbonseogi』described as a person who was summoned to the emperor and crossed over to Wae, could work in the region of Imna due to the connection of Mokrigucha, his father with the region in Shingong 49, and Mokubipa described as Shinsaengbansuk was also a person carrying the same family name as Mok, working in the region of Imna, following Mokrigucha and Mokmanchi, rebelled against Baekje. This reflects only a relation between Imna and Baekje from the late 4th to the 6th century, and it can not be evidence that the Yamato ruled Baekje and Imna, I could understand. Additionally, on the premise that the Yamato controlled the region of Imna, Shilla raised a question of the conquest of Imna and it was Gungang Moyashin who was dispatched by the country. However, although he was also delineated as working as a general of Wae under the opposing situation of Baekje and Shilla surrounding Imna, as his performances, in effect, were far fetched from the roles performing in the region of Anla as a general of Baekje into the performances of Moyashin, the articles relating to Gungang Moyashin also reflected not a relationship between the Yamato and Anla, but a relation between Anla and Baekje. Also, as the period of Hummyunggi, when people of Wae, called 'the department of Japan' worked in the region of Anla, how characteristics of these people can be understood is a key to understaning the relationship between the Yamato and many nations on the Korean peninsula. However, after looking over the performances of people of Wad staying in Anla, before the year 541, they performed military roles to protect Shilla with the forces of Baekje on boundaries between Anla and Shilla in the year 541, or since the entrance into friendly alliance forged between Baekje and Shilla, these people performed diplomatic duties to play a role as such a negotiator with Shilla as discussing the region of Kaya. Therefore, in the process of publishing 『Ilbonseogi』, based on historical sources delivering the performances of people of Wae, called 'the department of Japan', 'bu', meaning a department, of 'daejebu', meaning a department of a secretary general assuming military and diplomatic roles was lent to such persons as Huseshin, Hanagik staying in Anla and performing military and diplomatic roles in Japan in the time of rules and orders, and so 'jaeAnla jeWaeshin' is namely considered 'Anla department of Japan'. Also, from the July, 541 when there appeared the diplomatic performances of these people, the problems of Shilla tongye, repatriation to the original place were raised. Therefore, it indicates since the establishment of friendly relationship between Baekje and Shilla, a problem between Anla and Baekje arose. In consequence, people of Wae, called 'the department of Japan', staying in Anla in the 6th century are also the people who Baekje asked the Yamato adminstration to let stay on boundaries between Anla and Shilla. Therefore, they are viewed as subsidiary existence mobilized for the military operations of Baekje. This testifies in reverse that the Yamato administration did not rule the southern part of the Korean peninsula as a main force, and it indicates that 'Imnailbonbu', meaning a department of Japan in Imna relating to people of Wae staying in Anla bore no relation to the control over the region of the peninsula of Yamato. In this treatise, however, in reviewing mainly the related articles in 『Ilbonseogi』·『Samguksagi』and Chinese historical books or epigraphs are used together, but the question of five kings of Wae in 『Songseo』 Waegukjun, delivering the real aspects of Wae did not be specifically mentioned. I'll try to study this issue sometime later.

目次
序論 = 1
1. 연구동향 및 문제제기 = 1
2. 연구방법 = 5
Ⅰ. 大和政權의 토지 하사의 실체 = 7
1. 분쟁지에 대한 大和政權의 토지 하사 = 7
1) 枕彌多禮의 하사와 加耶 7國 平定 = 7
(1) 磐石之盟의 주체 = 8
(2) 枕彌多禮 하사의 실체 = 14
(3) 加耶 7國 平定의 주체 = 15
2) 己汶·帶沙 하사와 百濟와 伴跛의 대립 = 17
(1) 百濟와 伴跛의 분쟁 실태 = 17
(2) 己汶·帶沙의 위치 = 21
(3) 多沙城과 多沙 하사 문제 = 27
2. 政爭과 大和政權의 토지하사 = 29
1) 백제의 政爭과 토지 하사 = 29
2) 大伴大連金村의 실각과 토지 하사 = 34
3. 大和政權과 百濟의 관계 = 39
Ⅱ. 大和政權과 新羅 정토 = 44
1. 神功紀와 雄略紀의 신라 정토 기사 = 44
1) 神功紀 49년조 검토 = 45
2) 神功紀 62년조 검토 = 47
3) 雄略紀 8년조 검토 = 52
2. 欽明朝 末의 新羅·高句麗 정토 = 56
1) 大和政權의 신라·고구려 정토 = 56
2) 大和政權의 신라·고구려 교섭 = 59
3. 신라 征討軍의 筑紫 출병 = 62
1) 紀男麻呂宿彌의 筑紫 출병 = 62
2) 來目皇子와 當摩皇子의 筑紫 출병 = 68
4. 신라 정토와 ‘任那 調’의 실체 = 71
1) 境部臣의 신라 정토와 任那의 調 = 72
2) 新羅使와 任那使의 貢調 = 79
5. 大和政權과 新羅의 관계 = 81
Ⅲ. 木滿致와 紀生磐宿彌의 渡倭 = 86
1. 木滿致의 召喚과 渡倭 = 86
1) 木滿致의 활동 배경 = 86
2) 木滿致의 召喚과 渡倭 = 90
(1) 『일본서기』의 無禮와 召喚 기사 = 90
(2) 木滿致의 渡倭 = 96
2. 紀生磐宿彌의 반란과 渡倭 = 98
1) 紀生磐宿彌와 任那佐魯那奇他甲背 = 98
2) 백제군의 任那 주둔 = 102
3) 백제와 木有非破·那奇他甲背 = 108
3. 任那와 百濟의 관계 = 111
Ⅳ. 近江毛野臣의 任那에서의 활동 = 114
1. 한반도 남부 지역의 정세 = 114
1) 加羅와 新羅의 통혼과 결렬 = 114
2) ‘布那牟羅城’ 拔城의 주체 = 121
2. 近江毛野臣의 任那 경영의 실체 = 127
1) 近江毛野臣의 군사 활동 여부 = 127
2) 近江毛野臣의 ‘安羅會議’ 주재 여부 = 129
3. 安羅와 百濟의 관계 = 134
Ⅴ. 安羅에서 활동한 倭人 = 136
1. 倭人의 安羅 체류 = 136
1) 欽明 2(541)년의 ‘百濟會議’ = 136
2) 倭人의 安羅 체류 = 139
2. 백제와 신라 관계의 변화와 倭人 = 143
1) ‘新羅通謀’의 의미 = 143
2) ‘任那之政’과 ‘下韓之政’ = 146
3) ‘本處送還’의 실체 = 148
3. 百濟의 會議 소집과 ‘任那日本府’ = 151
4. 安羅·百濟·大和政權의 관계 = 158
結論 = 161
參考文獻 = 165
Abstract = 173

영남대학교 도서관 (247017)

• 일본서기
• 한반도
• 기사