This paper considers awareness of the problem missing from the historical narrative when considering the historical phase of the King-Jinheung monument(真興王碑) in East Asia. The Jinheung monument can show Confucianism and peculiar beliefs through words. This complex thought can be confirmed through the stone carving materials in Northern Wei. Therefore, this stone monument is important as a stone monument in East Asian history that covers the Northern Dynasties and the ancient countries of Korean Peninsula.
However, the Jinheung monument did not find any significance in the history of East Asia. Because, in modern oriental history, there was an understanding that monument studies was underestimated. The first study of the Jinheung monument in modern hisitory was done by Konan Naito(内藤 湖南). He found the significance of the Jinheung King monument in the exchange between the Northern Court of China and Silla. However, he had a sense of opposition and superiority to Gim Jeong-hui(金正喜). In other words, his thought was critical of the Kaozheng(考証学) scholar's emphasis on stone monument research, which is called the "Northern stelae and Southern copybooks(北碑南帖論)".