Jolsujae (拙修齋) Cho Tae-jing was a respected figure who studied under Myungjae Yoon Jeung pursuing sincere learning and devout practice. Both his poems and Mansi (挽詩) and ritual texts written by his acquaintances to express condolences after his death were published as 『Jolsujaejip』 consisting of six volumes and three books. Later generations evaluated Jolsujae as a person who strived for virtuous deeds rather than writing. like the evaluation, the poems he left are plain, instructive, and sincere instead of being literature full of splendid rhetoric or unique ideas. From the perspective of literature, it is difficult to say that he made noteworthy achievements in his works in terms of the quantity and quality, but <Shinbyeon Myeongjae Seonsaeng Pimuso (伸卞明齋先生被誣疏)> contained in Volume 3 seems remarkable in the aspects of Cho Tae-jing’s own devotion to the master (師門; Samun), the full account of destructing 『Rhoseoyugo』, and the logic of responding to Hoenisibi (懷尼是非). Since Cho Tae-jing has not been noted in the academic world, this paper first introduces his life and studies, considers the full story of Samun Byeonmu (師門 辨誣 ), and then examines the significance of Jolsujae’s petition.
 Hoenisibi ended officially in 1716 through King Sukjong’s Disposition of Byeongsin (丙申處分). Pointing out the deeds of Yun Seon-geo including the father and son’s and the problems of 『Rhoseoyugo』, Shin Gu filed a petition, which led to the Disposition of Byeongsin after all. When Oh Myeong-jun (吳命峻), Eom Gyeong-su (嚴慶遂), and Lee Hong-je (李弘濟) supported Shin-gu’s raising of the issue, King Sukjong defined his position to agree with Oh Myung-jun and so on. Later, when Kim Chang-jip (金昌集) raised an objection again, King Sukjong changed his position and ordered them to destroy 『Rhoseoyugo』. Accordingly, Cho Tae-jing wrote a petition with his Samun to defend them; however, it was not delivered to King Sukjong, and Cho Tae-jing was imprisoned in Uigeumbu instead. Cho Tae-jing who failed to make a defense passed away the following year, and the resentment of his failure was included not only in his poems but in the writings of his acquaintances, too.
 Cho Tae-jing’s logic of defense is similar to that of those who defended Yoon Seon-geo and the father and son. However, he made more precise logic by securing richer evidence. His logic was not only influenced by the arguments of the predecessors but had influence over the advocacy of the latter generations for Samun. One evidence is that Yun Gwang-so (尹光紹) quoted Cho Tae-jing’s phrases just as they were in his petition. Meanwhile, Cho Tae-jing argued that those who attacked Yoon Seon-geo and the father and son ignored the overall context of the article and drew up the report by selecting only the sentences they needed. However, he showed that limitation, too, as he used the same means.
Read full abstract