This study was conducted to examine the architectural characteristics of Hak-seong Lee Family's Geun-jae-gong Historic House located in Seok-cheon-ri, Ung-chon-myeon, Ulju-gun, Ulsan. The house is said to have been rebuilt in the early 20th century after it was built in the 18th century, and now there are nine buildings left, including the An-chae, Sa-rang-chae, Sa-dang, storehouses and etc. This house is a large-scale house that is difficult to find similar cases in near region. The division of areas on each building is clear, and it is evaluated that it retains the typical characteristics of the head family in the late Joseon Dynasty in terms of its overall size and layout. In addition, the current wooden structure, which is said to have been rebuilt in the early 20th century, shows the composition method and space utilization method of the 3-Dori type upper structure, which have become more diverse since the late Joseon Dynasty. This has not been dealt with in the previous survey, and should be considered in detail through this paper.

The purpose of this study is to search for a relationship between Gospel and Culture. According to traditional typological study, Gospel and Culture are sorted into five groups. Also, this paper seeks to evaluate five typological models between Gospel and Culture. A study between Christ and Culture began with H. Richard Niebuhr, who divided five Types:　Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and culture in Paradox, Christ the Transformer of Culture. Paul G. Hiebert sorted Gospel and Culture into three types: Gospel against Culture, Gospel in Culture and Gospel about Culture. John T. Seamands sorted Gospel and Culture into four types: Fundamental model, fulfillment model, discontinuity model and liberal model. And Theo Sundermeier sorted Gospel and Culture into six types: ‘Konfrontationsmodell’ which is based on ‘Dualismus’, ‘pluralistische’ Modell, ‘Fortschrittsmodell’, ‘Erfullungsmodel’, ‘antithetische Modell’ and ‘Konvivenz Modell’ based on good relationship with neighbor. This study is based on the above preceding research that is sorted into six models on study between Gospel and Culture: fundamental model. pluralistic model, fulfillment model, discontinuity model. transformation model and creative model. The fundamental model is based on relationship between Gospel and Culture that is considered devil and no value to dialogue. The pluralistic model is based on the scriptural phrases Ⅰ Timothy 2:3-4 and Hebrews 11:6. This models recognizes another religion as one way to salvation as Christianity. The fulfillment model is based on the theory of evolution that Christianity is the fulfillment of another religions. The discontinuity model is based on the theory of H. Kraemer that no continuity between the Christian Message(Gospel) and Non-Christian World(Culture). But the only one continuity between Gospel and Culture is girded with ‘Einstellung und Haltung des Missionars’. The transformation model is based on the theory of H. Richard Niebuhr that Christ is authorized as the Transformer of Culture. But this model is based on the dualism that Gospel is an invariable truth and Culture is an variability. According to the results of study of models, this paper suggested one useful model between Gospel and Culture. This creative model is based on the dynamics of Gospel and respect to neighbor culture and religion that are focused on the mission of the Holy Spirit, who is the presence of Christ. The free action of the Holy Spirit The purpose of this study is to search for a relationship between Gospel and Culture. According to traditional typological study, Gospel and Culture are sorted into five groups. Also, this paper seeks to evaluate five typological models between Gospel and Culture. A study between Christ and Culture began with H. Richard Niebuhr, who divided five Types:　Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and culture in Paradox, Christ the Transformer of Culture. Paul G. Hiebert sorted Gospel and Culture into three types: Gospel against Culture, Gospel in Culture and Gospel about Culture. John T. Seamands sorted Gospel and Culture into four types: Fundamental model, fulfillment model, discontinuity model and liberal model. And Theo Sundermeier sorted Gospel and Culture into six types: ‘Konfrontationsmodell’ which is based on ‘Dualismus’, ‘pluralistische’ Modell, ‘Fortschrittsmodell’, ‘Erfullungsmodel’, ‘antithetische Modell’ and ‘Konvivenz Modell’ based on good relationship with neighbor. This study is based on the above preceding research that is sorted into six models on study between Gospel and Culture: fundamental model. pluralistic model, fulfillment model, discontinuity model. transformation model and creative model. The fundamental model is based on relationship between Gospel and Culture that is considered devil and no value to dialogue. The pluralistic model is based on the scriptural phrases Ⅰ Timothy 2:3-4 and Hebrews 11:6. This models recognizes another religion as one way to salvation as Christianity. The fulfillment model is based on the theory of evolution that Christianity is the fulfillment of another religions. The discontinuity model is based on the theory of H. Kraemer that no continuity between the Christian Message(Gospel) and Non-Christian World(Culture). But the only one continuity between Gospel and Culture is girded with ‘Einstellung und Haltung des Missionars’. The transformation model is based on the theory of H. Richard Niebuhr that Christ is authorized as the Transformer of Culture. But this model is based on the dualism that Gospel is an invariable truth and Culture is an variability. According to the results of study of models, this paper suggested one useful model between Gospel and Culture. This creative model is based on the dynamics of Gospel and respect to neighbor culture and religion that are focused on the mission of the Holy Spirit, who is the presence of Christ. The free action of the Holy Spirit breaks down the walls between culture, religion and nations.

This paper aims to suggest Middle and Medio-passive categories in Korean with cross-linguistic data. K. Kim(2009) argues that there are three kinds of non-active Voice categories in Korean: I-inchoatives, Zero inchoatives and Passives. I, however, argue that I-inchoative and Zero inchoative show morphological, distributional and semantic differences, and thus they should be respectively categorized into Middle and Anticausative. The so-called –i morpheme is regarded traditionally as passive morpheme, but I show that it is not just a passive but Non-active Voice morpheme in Korean. I have also argued that Medio-passive constructions should be assumed in Korean, because cross-linguistically they show distributional and semantic differences from middles and passives. An Instrumental phrase and an Agent phrase or an Agent phrase and‘by itself’can appear together in the medio-passives, and semantically they can have middle interpretation too.