Well, there were the following counter opinion about the analysis of the map recently. "Originally, maps has huge visual effect, thus it tend to be argued based on only few maps in the territorial debate, but as a matter of fact, inaccurate old maps only have hearsay evidence at most in the international adjudication arena. Especially the map which is not based on the measurement has little evidential ability in fact.(Newsletter No.127 by half moon)."
This person referred the article of Mr. Araki Norio (荒木教夫), who specialises in international law, and concluded that inaccurate old maps are worthless for the international adjudication. However, if you actually read Araki's thesis, it is understood that it is mere a part of quotation.
Araki wrote that the map, which its' value has been admitted in the international adjudication, had been basically the ones which show "Mutual agreement of the country concerned", even they were attached to the border agreement. He also admit that though the official maps of the party in dispute doesn't become the conclusive proof of the dispute solution, but the maps in which the land in concern was diadvantageously drawn and voluntarily admitted it has no sovereignty over the land of concern hold important meanings in dispute. "
However, Korea has absolutely no official maps which described this debatable island favourable to their territorial claim nor sovereignty in the debatable ground. Moreover, there is even no Korean maps which actually described the island in concern (Takeshima/Dokdo) itself at all in the first place. In a word, it can be said that it was clarified that in South Korea, there is no single map that could be used as an evidence in the international adjudication to support their claim.