To modern people Sechaek(세책, 貰冊), book lending in traditional Korea, has features that provide fresh and interesting subject matter. That it had only been prevalent in Seoul, one of many cities at the time, the regular customers were women, who had to make up the living in houses, brought out there furnishings and made debts to participate, the contents were not that of housewives`` morality but foul and therefore created anxiety of the ruling class, were enough aspects to focus on Sechaek, one of numerous historical events. This study started from the fact that this kind of book lending did exist in China in the name of ‘Seseo’. And only because it has not been receiving much of attention, the academy misconceived that the data of ‘Seseo’ seldom exist. And this study is trying to break its misunderstandings. ‘Seseo’ in China, unlike its cognition until now, in addition to Seseopo, the rental houses, existed in many forms such as 書船(Seoseon) and 貨郞(hwanang), which were book selling stalls. Furthermore, the user of Sechaek were not only in noble class but also in government officials, soldiers, merchants and lower class of people and this is the same in Chinese Seseo. Additionally, in the comparison in women only, it is very similar in many aspects except the class of readers and few special features in cultural aspects. Conclusionally, the reason for difference in propotion of studies in Sechaek and Seseo was the difference of publishing and press situations between the countries. In other words, we must not overlook the fact that Korean publishing was very limited compared to that of Chinese at the time. No matter the amount and area, the publishing, circulation and consumption of books in China grew explosively and on the other hand, those in Korea were not. The dependence of Sechaeck had to be high, and therefore it has been seen as a peculiar cultural phenomenon in Chosun Dynasty. However in China, it was just a natural part of circulation process because the distinction between buying the book and borrowing it was not necessary. Accordingly, we should acknowledge the fact that book lending in China did exist enough and expect follow-up studies for the explanation for the characterized and limited place called ‘Seoul’.