1905 - June 5 - Tokyo Asahi Shimbun Corrected "Liancourt Rocks" as "Takeshima"

Prof.Shin Yong-ha(1997) (cache) and other pro-Korean claim that Japanese government and Newspaper conspired to "keep secret" and "not to publish the fact Takeshima was formally incorporated into Shimane" in official gazette nor newspapers so that many Korean and other foreigners in Tokyo could not know the incorporation. But Tokyo Asahi Shimbun(東京朝日新聞), the former name of the Asahi Shimbun, which was one of the most popular newspapers in Japan and the paper reported a circulation of over 100 thousands copies on weekdays already in 1900, actually made correction of the name of the island from "Liancourt Rocks" in 30th May to "Takeshima" in 5th June, following the correction article of Official Gazette on a same day. Obviously, it was no secret for Japanese government nor newspaper at all and apparently the fact that Liancourt Rocks was now Japanese Takeshima was easily accessible to all the foreigners including many Korean in Tokyo.

According to Prof. Shin's delusional "conspiracy theory", "Japanese government didn't allow newspaper to publish the fact so that the "secret" could be kept from many Koreans rediding in Tokyo at the time". In other words, if Official Gazettes corrected the name of the island and newspapers like Tokyo Asahi Shimbun, one of the largest newspaper printed the corrected map clearly indicate Liancourt Rocks was now Japanese "Takeshima", Korean definately had noticed about the incorporation of so-called their island. Korean always say that Korea had no chance of protest since it had no diplomacy in 1906, but there were no trace of protests against these official gazettes and newspapers in spite of it was way before the the Second Korea-Japan Agreement (referred to in South Korea as the "Ulsa protectorate treaty") in November 1905, based on which Japan seized diplomatic sovereignty over the old Empire of Korea.

In fact, according to Prof. Shin, in October 1905, Korean did protest against Japanese when they noticed a Japanese tried to own the Korean land (江原道蔚珍郡竹辺浦), where Japanaese Imperial Navy built the watchtower and later removed it just like Takeshima. And Korean government succeeded in bringing back to Korea in April 1906 !! What about Takeshima/Dokdo? Why they didn't even made protest against Japanese active effective control on Ryanko-to(Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) in early 1900's - 1905, in which Japanese had been hunting Sealions freely with some Korean hired, Navy investigating, building watchtowers and tearing down later or even after they finally found out that it was officially incorporated into Shimane in March 1906, just like they did to the land in 竹辺浦?

So, why Korean in Tokyo who were supposed to have read this newspaper and official gazette didn't protest the incorporation at all? The only answer is, well, very simple, I suppose, that Korean didn't considered it to be their territory at all. It is positively supported by the fact that in the June 2 edition of Korean newspaper "Hwangseong Shinmun"(皇城新聞), Korean actually called Liancourt Rocks as "Angohu島(island)=Liancourt island" which was same with Japanese called it, not Dokdo, Seokdo, Usando nor any other names Korean claim to be the old names for Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks afterall, and the fact in July 1906 Edition, they reported that Ministry of Interior officially replied to Japanese Govenor-General that Takeshima/Dokdo was out of Uld County , too.

(A lots of thanks to matsu, who told me where to find newpapers and Prof. Shin's article, and providing Japanese translations for us.)

1905 - May 30 - Tokyo Asahi Shimbun

1905 - June 05 - Tokyo Asahi Shimbun

1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定)

1905 - May 29 , 30 & June 5- An Extra of Official Gazette "The War Report of The Japan Naval Battle"

1905 - June 2 - 皇城新聞 : Korean called "Liancourt Rocks(リアンコルド岩)" as "Angohu島", not "Dokdo", Seokdo nor Usando.The 15th column " South Korea's
Groundless Claim of "Ingerent Part of (Korean) Territory"

1906 - July - Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County (皇城新聞 「鬱島郡의 配置顛末)


pacifist said...

Thanks Kaneganese.
Pro-Korean people including Steve the frog-brained can't refute anymore...
Liancourt Rocks were japan's land. Korea had no right to claim the rocks.

dokdo-takeshima.com said...

Kaneganese, the Japanese of course did make public their annexation of Liancourt Rocks. Nobody is saying the "incorporation" was kept secret forever.

But again you show your lack of historical context.

First Japan's public acknowledgement of their annexation didn't come until after the Japanese had decimated the Russian's Baltic Fleet at the Battle of Tsushima. At this point Japan had uncontested control of the Korean peninsula. The Japanese had routed the Russians from Port Arthur, they had driven them out of Manchuria as well. The Japanese had all but won the Russo Japanese war by June of 1905.

Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks in a clandestine manner for at least a couple of reasons.

First, it would have been foolish of the Japanese to annex Dokdo publicly and then station naval on the rocks. They would be sitting ducks in a naval conflict.

Second, Japan was very worried they might be perceived as heavy handed if they incorporated islands thought to be Korean land. At this point the Japanese politicians were worried other foreign nations might become involved in Korean affairs. They still remembered the Triple Intervention of 1895 when they were stripped of the Liandong Peninsula by the Western nations.

Japan's incorporation "announcement" makes no mention of Liancourt Rocks. It was the size of a postage stamp on a local prefecture newspaper. There was no announcement of the annexation of the islets in their official gazette nor at a central government level. This is not legal.

Japan's islands Pacifist?

Not even your country's own records and maps can help you....


Kaneganese said...

Thanks, pacifist

Yes, I agree. So far, almost all the documents we went through clearly tells us that Japan is the rightful owner of 竹島/Liancourt Rocks. On the other hand, all the documents clearly tell us that Korean didn't considered it as their territory until around 1950, when Korean started to show its aggression for stealing lands from Japan.

pacifist said...

Steve the frog-brain,

You must admit that Japan has a right to own Liancourt Rocks because Japan has various documents and maps to show that she controlled the rocks until 1945.

On the other hand, Korea has no evidence to reach the rocks before the early 20th century, when some of Korean fishermen were hired by Japanese. I asked you to bring the evidence to show that Korea has a right to own the rocks but you failed and still you have no evidence.

matsu said...


Thank you for posting the Tokyo Asahi Shimbun.

Now, it is obvious that the incorporation of Takeshima was not a secret, and the Koreans could also know it very easily.

It is just like Alibi(アリバイ)in detective stories, to explain the fact that the Koreans never protested the incorporation of Takeshima.

So now the Alibi has broken, only the fact remains that the Korans did not protest the incorporation of the island.

The reason is easy. It was not because they have no right to protest at that time, but the island was not their territory.

I say again the responsibility of Ulleung-do Governer 沈興澤 is very serious.
He should have sent the information about the incorporation earlier, if the island really belonged to his territory.

I confess I could not notice the viewpoint you have shown about the 竹辺望楼 case when I sent the translation of 愼鏞廈’s article.

Yes, you are right. The Koreans at that time could protest, and did protest and protect their land, if the land really belonged to their territory.

Sorry I still cannot find the original document 內部來去案, and
I hope we can talk about this matter later with another post.

Below is what professor Shin says in his article, and my Japanese translation.

일제는 러ㆍ일 전쟁 종결직후 강원도 울진군ㆍ죽변포에 설치했던 망루를 철거할 때 망루장(望樓長)과 일본 상인이 결탁하여 망루토지(望樓土地)를 침탈하려고 시도했으며, 36) 6개월간이나 분쟁과 교섭이 진행되다가 한국 의정부(議政府)의 노력에 의해 저지된 예도 있었다. 37)

36)내부래거안(內部來去案)(규(奎) No.17768) 제(第)1책(冊), 광무(光武) 10년(年) 2월(月) 26일조(日條), 내부대신(內部大臣)의 의정부참정대신(議政府參政大臣)에의 보고(報告)참조. 일제가 1905년 10월 죽변망루(竹邊望樓)를 철거할 때 일본해군(日本海軍)의 망루장(望樓長) 고교청중(高橋淸重)이란 자가 일본상인(日本商人)에게 망루와 그 토지(土地)를 매각했다 하여 울진군수(蔚珍郡守)에게 인허공문(認許公文)의 발급을 요구하며 이의 침탈을 기도하였다가 항의에 부딪혀 6개월간이나 분쟁이 일어났다.
37)내부래거안(內部來去案) 제(第)1책(冊), 광무(光武)10년(年) 4월(月) 17일조(日條), 의정부조회(議政府照會) 제(第)56호(號).

日帝は、露日戦争終決直後、江原道蔚珍郡・竹辺浦に設置した望樓を撤去する際、望樓長と日本商人が結託して望樓土地を侵奪しようと試み36)、 6ヶ月間にわたる紛争と交渉があったが、韓国議政府の努力によって阻止された例もあった。 37)

36)內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條, (內部大臣の議政府參政大臣への報告)参照。日帝が 1905年 10月、竹辺望樓を撤去する際、日本海軍望樓長の高橋清重という者が、日本商人に望樓とその土地を売却したとして、蔚珍郡守に認許公文の発給を要求して侵奪を企て、抗議によって 6ヶ月間にわたる紛争が起きた。
37)內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號.

Gerry Bevers said...

Very interesing, Kaneganese. Thanks.

Kaneganese said...

You are welcome, matsu and Gerry


As for "內部來去案", yes, that was exactly what I was thinking about when I asked you if I could read original documents. Although I wasn't sure about what the original documents say, but I put "according to Prof. Shin" so that I could avoid responsibility of misreading. I hope we could check the original documents in the near future. BTW, I don't know why Prof. Shin put this episode in his article, but I guess he just wanted to show how Korean bravely fought against "evil Imperial Japan" and suceeded. Apparently, it was a bad move.

To dear readers;

If you find the Korean two old documents below, please let me know where I can get, thanks.

●內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條

●內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號.

GTOMR said...

here is 内部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條
But no link to original document.

P/S These days there are no "recent comment" isn't on the title page and it is difficult to read those...

GTOMR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kaneganese said...


Thanks, anyway.

GTOMR said...

Sorry manytimes,
It is 內部來去案 which matsu sugegsted about(36)

above one is wrong link

correct one here
内部來去案 光武10年2月26日條

照會 第三號
內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下

現接江原道觀察署理春川郡守 李明來의 第十六號 報告書內開 頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪 本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온 바 今陰曆十二月二十七日日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰 竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을 並爲買得於望樓長인즉 自郡으로 認許公文成給이라 온 바 郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이기 高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을 幷即詳探報來야 以爲轉報케  事로 指飭以送이더니 即接該郡守報告內開 即到指令를 承準와 招致高賀詳問事狀인즉 自己 日本佐賀縣三養基郡鳥棲洞二百十三番戶 而姓은 佐賀오 名은 亦次오 望樓長은 高橋오 名은 淸重이오 居住 日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址 不知이온 바 上年十月日駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地 不爲買賣이온니 基址之隨家 意有常例야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다 故로 緣由報告等因을 據査온즉 蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이 軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온 今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라 萬不近理이기 玆以仰佈오니 査照신 후 迅辦交涉시와 即行禁止케 시고 示明시믈 爲要.
內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下 光武十年二月二十六日

GTOMR said...

議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部(1906.04.17)

議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長

貴第三號 照會 接到와 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦所在望樓與地段私相賣買禁止一事로 準即行文日本統監고 業經照覆在案이온 바 現樓該統監照覆內開 去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉 準即行文我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開 該望樓所用建物 及營造物以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次 去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代 金然該敷地決無賣却等因 準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이기 玆에 照會오니 照亮심을 爲要.
議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下 議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長 光武十年四月十七日 光武十年四月十一日 裁定 課員

Kaneganese said...


You did it! (Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote earlier.) Thanks, GTOMR! You are an angel.

And 李址鎔 and 朴齊純 ? They are exactly the pair who didn't make any "protest" after they ordered Shim, the head of Ulleungdo, to investigate the shape and population of "Dokdo" on 28th, May, just a month later. Now, it is apparent that Korean government didn't protest Japan about the incorportation because they found out that "Dokdo" was not their territory, not because they didn't have diplomacy.

dokdo-takeshima.com said...

Matsu, how many Korean or Japanese citizens or politicians were even aware of Liancourt Rocks in the early 1900s? Even most Japanese themselves didn't become aware of these rocks until after the battle of Tsushima and Japan was a much more modern international country at this time.

You say..."Korea didn't protest Japan's annexation of Liancourt Rocks..."

This is like asking woman who was raped while tied up and gagged why she didn't scream or fight back.

Isn't there anyone on this forum that understands the historical relationship between Japan and Korea during this era? I can't believe there are so many Japanese "historians" on this forum who lack even a rudimentary knowledge of Japanese-Korean relations at the turn of the 20th Century!

By 1906 the Japanese (Hayashi et al) been purging the Korean court of anti-Japanese leaders for least 2 years. This means by the time Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks there was little or no opposition left in Korean government anyway. Hayashi himself stated before the protectorate treaty "If we can clean up the court and cut the weeds from the roots, we can improve administration in Korea as a whole." Ito was busy finding reliable collaborators to install.

The Resident General inquired to the Home Ministry about Liancourt Rocks.

Who was the Resident General Minister in Korea around this time? Hayashi Gonsuke. The same thug who refused to remove Japanese trespassers and illegal Japanese police from Dokdo's nearest island Korea's Ulleungdo.


Do you really think Hayashi would have suggested returning Liancourt Rocks to Korea if they found out they had wrongfully annexed Korean territory? Fat chance.

Kaneganese said...

BTW, what is  ? Is that a space? Comma?

GTOMR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GTOMR said...

>BTW, what is  ? Is that a space? Comma?

Maybe some charactor about comma or some hangul , but I dont know those because there are no original doccument data linked

Kaneganese said...

Thanks, GTOMR

From this documents, it is apparent that Korean government protested and told Resident-General they won't allow Japaenese to sell the land which used to be used as a watchtower site. They did have a "diplomacy" when it comes to Korean territory. So why they didn't do the same thing a month later about Takeshima? The answer is apparent. Korean realized Takeshima was not Usando, Seokdo nor none of the Korean islands.

GTOMR, do you think we can find documents which are something to do with 皇城新聞's article「鬱島郡의 配置顛末」in June 13 on a same site?

matsu said...

Sorry I was busy out and could not contact.

Thank you very much for finding 內部來去案.
Kaneganese said you are an angel, I would say you are a genius for finding documents.
I admire you.

dokto-takeshima. com,

I said,
“…only the fact remains that the Korans did not protest the incorporation of the island(takeshima)…. It was not because they have no right to protest at that time, but the island was not their territory.
The Koreans at that time could protest, and did protest and protect their land, if the land really belonged to their territory.”

This 竹辺望楼case which Korean Professor Shin Yong-ha introduced proves the fact.

dokdo-takeshima.com said...

Matsu, the Koreans did protest about Japan's claim to Dokdo. The question is what did Japan do about it?

Why don't you read this page and tell us what effect Chosun's protests had with regard to Japan's invasion of Ulleungdo?


If Korea couldn't stop the Japanese from swarming Ulleungdo, what makes you think they could stop them on Dokdo, an uninhabited rock from a distant island?

Don't place the onus of Korea to object to Japan's presence on Korean soil. Try to justify Japan's presence there to begin with.

matsu said...





①울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루를 일본인이 사적으로 매매한 것은 불법이니 금지시킬 것

②(文書番号)照會 第三號 
(発送日)光武十年二月二十六日(1906年 02月 26日)
(発送者)內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
(受信者)議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下


③現接 江原道觀察署理春川郡守 李明來의 第十六號 報告書內開
この「江原道觀察署理・春川郡守 李明來」も「沈興澤報告」の時と同じ人物ですね。

「(內部大臣の李址鎔が)江原道觀察署理春川郡守 李明來の第十六號報告書を受けたが、それによると、」

④頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪
「先月13日(1月13日)に、蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮の報告書を受け取ったが、それによると、」

⑤本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온 바

⑥今陰曆十二月二十七日日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰


⑦竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을 並爲買得於望樓長인즉 自郡으로 認許公文成給이라□온 바



⑧郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이□기


⑨高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을 幷即詳探報來□야
以爲轉報케□事로 指飭以送이더니

(江原道觀察署理春川郡守 李明來が、蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮に指示したところ)」



⑪即到指令를 承準□와 招致高賀詳問事狀인즉

⑫自己□ 日本佐賀縣三養基郡鳥棲洞二百十三番戶 而姓은 佐賀오 名은 亦次오





⑬望樓長은 高橋오名은淸重이오 居住□ 日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址□ 不知이온 바



⑭上年十月日駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地□ 不爲買賣이온니





⑮基址之隨家□ 意有常例□야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다 故로 緣由報告等因을 據査□온즉




⑯蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이 軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온□

「蔚珍郡・竹邊浦の望樓は、 日本海軍が 軍用に暫らく駐屯していたが、 已に撤歸したので、」


⑰今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라 萬不近理이□기

「いま、この「日本商民・高賀亦次」が、「望樓長高橋淸重」に、 私相賣買というのは、

⑱玆以仰佈□오니 査照□신 후 迅辦交涉□시와 即行禁止케 □시고 示明□시믈 爲要.



⑲內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下 光武十年二月二十六日

「內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔より、議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下へ。





一応、「江原道觀察署理春川郡守 李明來」のレベルで考察しているものと思いますが。


これは、「江原道觀察署理 春川郡守 李明來」の発言なのでしょうか。

⑱は、「江原道觀察署理 春川郡守 李明來」のことばなのか、ここからは「內部大臣 李址鎔」のことばなのか。





議政府 照會 第五十六號(1906年 04月 17日)

①울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루 및 부속건물을 일본인에게 매각함을 조회


②(文書番号)議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
(発送日)光武十年四月十七日(1906年 04月 17日)
(発送者)議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
(受信者)內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
(決済者)議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長

③貴第三號 照會□ 接到□와
「貴第三號 照會は、接到したが、」


⑤準即行文日本統監□□고 業經照覆在案이온 바



⑦去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉



⑧準即行文我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開

⑨該望樓所用建物 及營造物 以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次


⑩去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代金 然該敷地決無賣却等因
「去年十二月二十七日に業經受領代金 然該敷地決無賣却



⑪準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이□기 玆에 照會□오니 照亮□심을 爲要.

この「盼」はなんでしょうか? 文字化け?

最後の「玆에 照會□오니 照亮□심을 爲要」

⑫議政府參政大臣 朴齊純  內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
「議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 より、 內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下へ」

⑬議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長 光武十年四月十七日 光武十年四月十一日 裁定 課員






日帝は、露日戦争終決直後、江原道蔚珍郡・竹辺浦に設置した望樓を撤去する際、望樓長と日本商人が結託して望樓土地を侵奪しようと試み36)、 6ヶ月間にわたる紛争と交渉があったが、韓国議政府の努力によって阻止された例もあった。 37)

 36)內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條, (內部大臣の議政府參政大臣への報告)参照。日帝が 1905年 10月、竹辺望樓を撤去する際、日本海軍望樓長の高橋清重という者が、日本商人に望樓とその土地を売却したとして、蔚珍郡守に認許公文の発給を要求して侵奪を企て、抗議によって 6ヶ月間にわたる紛争が起きた。
 37)內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號.



matsu said...






內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條

울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루를 일본인이 사적으로 매매한 것은 불법이니 금지시킬 것
(文書番号)照會 第三號 
(発送者)內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
(受信者)議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下
現接 江原道觀察署理春川郡守李明來의 第十六號報告書內開
頃於上月十三日에 接閱蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 報告書즉 內槪
本郡近北面竹邊浦望樓 留駐之日本海軍이 今爲撤歸이온바
今陰曆十二月二十七日 日本商人 高賀者 來到郡廳曰
竹邊浦所在望樓與地段을 並爲買得於望樓長인즉 自郡으로 認許公文成給이라하온바
郡守가 不可自下擅便故로 玆에 報告等因이하기
高賀者居住姓名과 何月日에 給價幾許買得과 望樓長之姓名居址을
幷即詳探報來하야 以爲轉報케는事로 指飭以送이더니
即接該郡守報告 內開
即到指令를 承準하와 招致高賀 詳問事狀인즉
自己는 日本佐賀縣三養基郡鳥棲洞二百十三番戶 而姓은佐賀오名은亦次오
望樓長은 高橋오 名은淸重이오 居住는日本佐世保海兵團詰兵所오 居址는 不知이온바
上年十月日 駐箚撤歸之時에 給一百八十圓 買得望樓 而址地는 不爲買賣이온니
基址之隨家는意有常例하야 地段幷買之意로 前有所告이다故로 緣由報告等因을
蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓은 日本海軍이軍用暫駐타가 已爲撤歸이온바
今此日本商民高賀亦次가 望樓長高橋淸重에게 私相賣買云者가 非徒違越定章이오라
玆以仰佈하오니 査照하신 후 迅辦交涉하시와 即行禁止케하시고 示明하시믈 爲要.

內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔 議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下

內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號.

울진의 근북면 죽변포 망루 및 부속건물을 일본인에게 매각함을 조회
(文書番号)議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
(発送者)議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
(受信者)內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
(決済者)議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長

貴第三號 照會는接到하와
以蔚珍郡竹邊浦所在 望樓與地段 私相賣買禁止一事로
準即行文 日本統監□하고 業經照覆在案이온바
去月十四日 以蔚珍郡竹邊浦望樓賣却一事 接到貴第十三號照會 當經閱悉
準即行文 我佐世保海軍鎭守府 調査事實 仍接復開
該望樓所用建物及營造物 以代金收納後 擧越他人之意 賣却於佐賀縣人古賀亦次
去年十二月二十七日 業經受領代金 然該敷地決無賣却等因
準此照覆 照亮爲盼等因이하기
玆에 照會하오니 照亮하심을 爲要.
議政府參政大臣 朴齊純  內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下

議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長
參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長
光武十年四月十一日 裁定 課員


內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條

(文書番号)照會 第三號 
(発送日)光武十年二月二十六日(1906年 02月 26日)
(発送者)內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔
(受信者)議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下


「先月13日(1月13日)に、蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮の報告書を受けた。その報告には、




內部大臣勳一等 李址鎔より、議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 閣下へ。

內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號.

(文書番号)議政府 照會 第五十六號 內部
(発送日)光武十年四月十七日(1906年 04月 17日)
(発送者)議政府參政大臣 朴齊純
(受信者)內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下
(決済者)議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長  參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長

貴第三號 照會は、接到した。
[議政府參政大臣 朴齊純が、內部大臣 李址鎔からの「第三號 照會」(前掲の文書)を受け取った]



議政府參政大臣 朴齊純 より、 內部大臣 李址鎔 閣下へ

議政大臣 參贊 秘書課長 文書課長
參政大臣 局長 調査課長 一課長

光武十年四月十一日 裁定 課員

「跡地は売買しなかった」(而址地는 不爲買賣)ということになり、

「日帝は、露日戦争終結直後、江原道蔚珍郡竹辺浦に設置した望樓を撤去する際、望樓長と日本商人が結託して望樓土地を侵奪しようと試み36)、 6ヶ月間にわたる紛争と交渉があったが、韓国議政府の努力によって阻止された例もあった。 37)
 36)內部來去案(奎No.17768) 第1冊, 光武10年2月26日條,
 37)內部來去案 第1冊, 光武10年4月17日條, 議政府照會 第56號.」


愼鏞廈「日帝の 1904~5年 独島侵奪試図とその批判」 (第6章)
  第4章「日帝の 1904~5年 独島侵奪試図とその批判」(p167~196)


蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮
江原道觀察署理・春川郡守 李明來
內部大臣 李址鎔
參政大臣 朴齊純