tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post7944396463130566628..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 1906 - Feb 20 & April 17 - "Official Documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Vol.1" - Korean government protested about land transaction in 竹邊浦Gerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-73250625205360898502013-09-09T20:36:08.892+09:002013-09-09T20:36:08.892+09:00It’s a desperate try to justify Japan’s illegal in...It’s a desperate try to justify Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo.<br /><br />Kaneganese claims Korea could protest when it knew Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo even in 1906 basing on the Korean government’s inquiry about Japanese illegal personal trade of the watchtower in Jukbyeo coast.<br /><br />A Japanese false attempt to grab the watchtower site can be summarized as follows:<br /><br />A Japanese civilian named Kohga asked a Uljin County Magistrate for an official certification for the site of watchtower in Jukbyeon coast. He insisted the site of watchtower is his property because he bought watchtower. His claim considered as illegal was reported to Korean Prime Minister. Korea inquired Japanese Resident-General of Korea of this illegal personal trade and received the letter from Japanese Resident- General that it was true he bought the watchtower, but it was not true he bought the site of watchtower. <br /><br />Japan’s illegal incorporation of Dokdo can be summarized as follows:<br /><br />A Japanese named Nakai Yozaburo planed to ask Japanese Resident-General in Korea the way he could use Dokdo for sealion fishing he considered as Korea land. But Japanese high ranking officials persuaded him to apply for the incorporation of Dokdo into Japanese land and lease it to him. Nakai was told Dokdo was ownerless and Japan needed it for building watchtower for Russo-Japan War. Despite there was an objection from an Home Ministry official who suspected Dokdo was Korean land, Nakai submitted the application. The Japanese Cabinet decided to incorporate Dokdo into Japanese land on the ground Dokdo was ownerless. Japan didn’t inquire before and didn’t notify Korea after Cabinet’s decision. Korea had no idea Dokdo was incorporated into Japanese land for year until the officials from Shimane Prefecture who unexpectedly dropped by Ulleongdo told the Governor Shim Dokdo became Japanese land.<br /><br />Those two cases are not comparable. Their nature and importance aren’t analogous even though both cases show Japanese greed for Korean land. The biggest difference is incorporation of Dokdo was the act by Japanese government and the land grabbing attempt of Jukbyeon coast was the act by a Japanese civilian. Inquiring about the act by a Japanese civilian can be done with no diplomatic sovereignty and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The fact Korea inquired about or protested against a Japanese civilian wrongdoing doesn’t mean Korea could freely protest against a Japanese government’s wrongdoing, too. <br /><br />The next big difference is a Japanese civilian’s attempt to falsely grab land of Jukbyeon was preventable because Korea could know it in advance, but in case of Japanese government’s incorporation of Dokdo, it is different. <br /><br />The fact Korea inquired about or protested against a Japanese civilian wrongdoing doesn’t mean Korea could freely protest against a Japanese government’s wrongdoing. <br /><br /><br />According to Prof. Shin, it took 6 months to prevent a Japanese land grabbing. That Japanese lied and Japanese Resident General confirmed his lie. Obviously, it sounds so simple criminal case to be solved quickly, probably within a few days. But Korea had to make efforts to solve this problem for 6 months. It illustrates how it was difficult for Korea to deal with Japanese Resident-General to correct the problem which was against the Japanese.<br /><br />It can be imagined it was not easy at all for Korean government to deal with<br />Japanese Resident General regarding Japanese Dokdo grabbing especially under the situation that Korea was deprived of diplomatic sovereignty and Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs was abolished. Japanese Resident General of Korea was notoriously representing the interests of Imperial Japan, not of Korea. Besides, Korea was on the brink of losing the whole Korea at the time by Japan. Thus, it’s not strange or abnormal or whatever Korean government didn’t take any action against Japanese government about Japanese stealing of uninhabited small barren islands in a danger of being deprived of the whole country. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-42511874789894914962011-07-18T00:32:30.061+09:002011-07-18T00:32:30.061+09:00I have made a correction from "shape" to...I have made a correction from "shape" to "circumstances" for the translation of 形便 in "Directive no. III (指令第三号)".Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-15654376305352063522008-11-23T16:16:00.000+09:002008-11-23T16:16:00.000+09:00Kaneganese,今年 爲始 means "starting this year." Since...Kaneganese,<BR/><BR/>今年 爲始 means "starting this year." Since the article talked about census, then I think the census was done just prior to September 26. And since the article said that the census and survey had been done separately, that would mean that the survey was done sometime before the census. <BR/><BR/>I think the July 13 article reported the new boundary survey results, which means the boundary survey was done sometime before July 13.<BR/><BR/>The fact that the dimensions given in the <A HREF="http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/02/july-1906-korea-omits-dokdo-from-uldo.html" REL="nofollow">July 13, 1906 article</A> were 60 <I>ri</I> east-west and 40 <I>ri</I> north-south and those given in the October 22, 1900 document were 50 <I>ri</I> wide 80 <I>ri</I> in length suggest that a new survey had been done.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I would love to see the 1906 survey report.Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-5954315711451261292008-11-23T09:15:00.000+09:002008-11-23T09:15:00.000+09:00Gerry,I finally got the images from Kyujanguaak si...Gerry,<BR/><BR/>I finally got the images from Kyujanguaak site with IE7.<BR/><BR/>I think though Korean upgraded Ulleungdo to Uldo County in 1900 Oct., they kept using "Ulleungdo" and "Uldo county" almost the same meaning as before. Old Korean documents and maps prove this conception. When they say "Ulleungdo" in documents and maps, it basically means "Ulleungdo plus adjacent neighbouring islets."Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-2594907339591670012008-11-22T23:19:00.000+09:002008-11-22T23:19:00.000+09:00Thanks, GerryI'll add the information.By the way, ...Thanks, Gerry<BR/><BR/>I'll add the information.<BR/><BR/>By the way, when do you think "今年 爲始" ? If it was done followed by this Directive no. III on 28 May, it might be June, but it is impossible that the year started in June.<BR/><BR/>And I noticed that you had already mentioned about "1900 report from Korea's Mininstry of Interior to Korea's Wuijeongbu, date October 22, " in the comment section of the article post. We were trying to read the documents here. (matsu wrote and translated it for us.)<BR/><BR/>제목 울릉도를 울도로 개칭하고 도감을 군수로 개정하기를 청함<BR/>문서번호 鬱陵島를 鬱島로 改稱하고 島監을 郡守로 改正에 關한 請議書<BR/>발송일 光武四年十月二十二日(1900년 10월 22일)<BR/>발송자 議政府贊政內部大臣 李乾夏<BR/>수신자 議政府議政 尹容善 閤下 査照 <BR/>右 는 該島가 東溟에 特立하야 大陸이 遠隔하온바 開國五百四年에 島監을 設置하야 島民을 保護하고 事務를 管掌케 할싀 該島監 裵季周의 報牒과 本部視察官 禹用鼎과 東萊稅務司의 視察錄을 參互節査하온즉 該地方이 蹤可八十里오 橫爲五十里라 四圍峭壁에 中有巨山하야 自北止南하고 間有大川하야 深廣이 幾容舟楫하고 其土가 沃腴하고 其民이 質野하야 自數十年來로 民蓄이 蕃殖하야 戶數가 爲四百餘家오 墾田이 爲萬餘斗落이라 居民의 一年農作擔包數爻가 藷爲二萬餘包오 大麥이 爲二萬餘包오 黃豆爲一萬餘包오 小麥이 爲五千包라하오니 大率戶數와 田數와 穀數를 陸處한 山郡에 較計하오면 數或不及이오나 不甚相左뿐더러 挽近外國人이 往來交易하야 交際上도 亦有하온지라 島監이라 稱號하오미 行政上에 果有妨碍기로 鬱陵島를 鬱島라 改稱하고 島監을 郡守로 改正하오미 妥當하읍기 此段勅令案을 會議에 提呈事.<BR/><BR/>http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/11/16th-column-seeking-truth-based-solely.html?showComment=1226415600000#c1422180941467436504<BR/><BR/><BR/>I am thinking writing a post about the document, but I always fail to open the bigger image of the documents on Kyujanguaak site. Could you get me the image of the original document from the site, please? I think the document is very important for the debate.Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-92011036589277483862008-11-22T20:25:00.000+09:002008-11-22T20:25:00.000+09:00Kaneganese,I think you should have included Septem...Kaneganese,<BR/><BR/>I think you should have included September 26, 1906 as another important date because <A HREF="http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/09/1906-sep-26-boundary-survey-of-uldo.html" REL="nofollow">an article in the Hwangseong Sinmun</A> that day comfirmed that the Uldo County magistrate had previously conducted a survey to determine boundaries and position of "the county," not the island. Here is what the article said:<BR/><BR/>鬱陵島戶口<BR/><BR/>鬱陵島郡守가 內部訓令을 承準하와 該郡境界位寘와 戶口 帳籍을 今年 爲始하야 一一 調査하였는데 男이 合 一千九百十六口오 女가 合 一千一百十 六口오 戶數가 六百十四戶라더라.<BR/><BR/><I>Population of Ulleungdo<BR/><BR/>Starting this year, the Uldo County magistrate, in accordance with an order from the Ministry of Interior, conducted separate surveys of the county's boundaries-position and household census. The total number of men was 1,916, the total number of women 1,616, and the number of households 614.</I><BR/><BR/>What happened to the boundry and position survey report mentioned in the article? I find it very suspicious that the only evidence of the Uldo County boundary survey being done are the newspaper accounts in the July 13 and September 26 editions of the Hwangseong Sinmun. <BR/><BR/>Why isn't there a Korean record of the Japanese request for a confirmation of Ulleungdo's neighboring islands, as was reported in the July 13 article? Where is the report from the Uldo County magistrate that was mentioned in the September 26 article? <BR/><BR/>That official survey report excluding Dokdo from Uldo County would be the final nail in the coffin for Korea's silly claims. <BR/><BR/>Did Rhee Syngman or a subsequent Korean administration hide or destroy the official report, but forgot about about the reporting of the survey report in the Hwangseong Sinmun?<BR/><BR/>I think Dokdo/Takeshima researchers should be concentrating on finding evidence of that 1906 survey report because that report might finally put Korean claims to rest.Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-71904582335816347622008-11-22T17:40:00.000+09:002008-11-22T17:40:00.000+09:00Thanks, MattYou are right. The word is not appropr...Thanks, Matt<BR/><BR/>You are right. The word is not appropriate. If you find any mistake, please let me know. Thanks, again.Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-80645619894764455062008-11-22T16:20:00.000+09:002008-11-22T16:20:00.000+09:00Kaneganese,I thinks "relinquished sovereignty" is ...Kaneganese,<BR/><BR/>I thinks "relinquished sovereignty" is the wrong word as it implies that Korea had clear, accepted and unchallenged sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks. <BR/><BR/>Something like "did not assert sovereignty" would be better.Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-63112339592373862042008-11-22T13:46:00.000+09:002008-11-22T13:46:00.000+09:00Prof. Jon Van Dyke's 2007 article on Takeshima/Dok...Prof. Jon Van Dyke's 2007 article on Takeshima/Dokdo is full of lies, half-truth and unprofessional mistakes. Actually, his article was funded by Korean organization and most of historical parts were written by Korean scholars plus some anti-Japan academics like Hori Kazuo. <BR/><BR/>"Through this treaty of 1905, japan solidified its control over Korea's foreign affairs, "reduced Korea to smi-colonial status," and led to the dismantling of the Korean Ministory of Foreign Affairs on January 17, 1906. (Shin, 1997) Although the treaty limited the authority of the resident-general "primarily" to diplomatic affairs, the new resident-general in fact took control of the entire administration, effectively removing any vestiges of sovereignty. (Ki-Baik Lee, 1984)Despite Korea's crippled status, the Korean State Council (Ch'amjong taeshin of the Uijongbu) nonetheless issued a protest of Japan's purported annexation of Dokdo/Takeshima on April 29, 1906, shortly after it learned of this move.(Shin, 1997)"<BR/><BR/>Apparently, Korean government still held the right of diplomatic affairs and was not effectively removed any vestiges of sovereignty. <BR/><BR/>Moreover the new resident-general in fact "didn't take control of the entire administration". Moreover, the "Directive no. III" he claimed as "protest", citing Shin's article, was not a protest at all, but just an internal documents which ordered local governor to investigate the situation and the "population of Dokdo".<BR/><BR/>Gosh, this is disgusting. Who is lying here? Prof. Shin? the Korean academics who wrote this lines for Prof. van Dyke? or Prof. himself? In either case, the article is rubbish as a scholatic article, but we can use this as a counter proof in the future since Prof. concluded that Korean sovereignty claim was effective only because he believes the Korean historical claim before 1905 is valid. In other words, Korean need to give us the concrete evidence of their effective control over the island before 1905, which nobody had succeeded in so far.<BR/><BR/>Plus, it has English translation of Korean words, which we can use as a reference...<BR/><BR/>Is "the Korean State Council (Ch'amjong taeshin of the Uijongbu) " 議政府?Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-70652505852435331752008-11-21T14:42:00.000+09:002008-11-21T14:42:00.000+09:00Steve the poison frog,Japanese on Ulleungdo and ex...Steve the poison frog,<BR/><BR/>Japanese on Ulleungdo and expanding Japanese territory are unrelated. Actually, as Kaneganese already mentioned, Japan didn't annex Ulleungdo although there were many Japanese civillians.<BR/><BR/>As we've learned, Laincourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea in the end of 19th century (Korea's eastern limit was Ulleungdo) and Korea didn't claim about the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks whilst they had a chance to claim. So there is no ground for Korean people to say "Dokdo is ours". <BR/><BR/>So all you have to do is, Steve the toad, to bring the evidence that shows Korea has a right to own the rocks, although you have failed for years and you will keep failing.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-1667377892831850962008-11-21T01:36:00.000+09:002008-11-21T01:36:00.000+09:00Dear dokdo-takeshima.com,Prof. 愼鏞廈 didn’t dare to...Dear dokdo-takeshima.com,<BR/><BR/>Prof. 愼鏞廈 didn’t dare to admit the Korean government could protest Japan after 1906.02.01. <BR/><BR/>But you have now admitted.<BR/><BR/>I think it is a good progress.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Then we should study what was the difference between the two cases, 竹島 and 竹邊浦.<BR/><BR/>I think “Remoteness” is nothing to do with the issue.<BR/><BR/><BR/>And the existence of 鬱島郡守 沈興澤 itself shows there was a way to do some activity for the residents of Ulleung island, if something happens.<BR/>And actually 沈興澤 reported the situation to 江原道觀察署理 春川郡守 李明來. It was as same as 蔚珍郡守 尹宇榮 reported to 江原道觀察署理 春川郡守 李明來,the same person.<BR/><BR/>Remember here, the characters are the same.<BR/><BR/> 江原道觀察署理 春川郡守 李明來<BR/> 内部大臣 李址鎔<BR/> 議政府参政大臣 朴齋純<BR/><BR/>The same person should have thought the two case the same way. <BR/><BR/><BR/>議政府参政大臣 朴齋純 could have done something for 独島, But he did nothing.<BR/><BR/>I think it was because<BR/>内部大臣 李址鎔 knew the document of 内部大臣 李乾夏 in 1900, which says Uldo county was in ”該地方이 蹤可八十里오 橫爲五十里라", so 独島(在於外洋百余里) was not included in the territory.<BR/>内部 soon understood the mistake of 鬱島郡守 沈興澤, so the central government did nothing for 独島.<BR/><BR/>・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・<BR/><BR/>As for the situation in 鬱陵島, 裵季周 for some times requested the central government to send policemen to the island.<BR/>But the central government never did it. <BR/><BR/><BR/>There is no record 沈興澤 and the residents in 鬱陵島 felt fear when 島根 delegation visited the island. They talked each other and some people changed their poems in Chinese character(漢詩)<BR/>see 奥原碧雲『竹島及欝陵島』1907Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-82524705052090242982008-11-20T14:25:00.000+09:002008-11-20T14:25:00.000+09:00Matsu, it was possible to deal with the Japanese g...Matsu, it was possible to deal with the Japanese government about land problems this is true.<BR/><BR/>However, as documents leading up to Japan's annexation of Liancourt Rocks show, the Koreans were helpless to deal with the situation at all. Even since 1899 Japanese had overwhelmed Ulleungdo to the point the local administration on Ulleungdo (Dokdo's most proximal island) were up in arms as to how to address the issue.<BR/><BR/>The Japanese Resident General Hayashi refused to remove illegal Japanese trespassers from Ulleungdo. The Japanese installed police on Ulleungdo without Korean consent and Hayashi pushed for legislation allowing for Japanese ownership of Korean land. <BR/><BR/>The situation on the Korean mainland and on remote Ulleungdo and even more remote Dokdo are not analogous at all. The local administration on Ulleungdo were isolated, outnumbered and records show us they were afraid for their safety. It's not surprising Shim Heung Taek didn't openly protest when the Japanese landed on Ulleungdo in 1906. If he loudly objected to the Japanese delegation there would have been payback by the large number of Japanese thugs and squatters living on Ulleungdo.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese-2.html" REL="nofollow">Japanese-Thugs-On-Ulleungdo</A><BR/><BR/>The Korean government repeatedly complained about the situation on Ulleungdo and what did Hayashi do? Abosolutely nothing...... So this article you've written is based on a completely false premise.<BR/><BR/>Kangerbangers the report that was sent back by the Interior Ministry did not give the circumference of Uldo County, it gave the dimension of Ulleungdo Island. You must correct this mistake.dokdo-takeshima.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262234000937445458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-4476149544970541212008-11-20T02:54:00.000+09:002008-11-20T02:54:00.000+09:00I forgot one word, Kaneganese.It's a great job!I forgot one word, Kaneganese.<BR/><BR/>It's a great job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-36749711376396784102008-11-20T02:16:00.000+09:002008-11-20T02:16:00.000+09:00Thank you, Kaneganese.I want to hear Korean people...Thank you, Kaneganese.<BR/><BR/>I want to hear Korean people’s opinion.<BR/><BR/>This document was first introduced by Korean Prof. 愼鏞廈 in 1989.<BR/><BR/>http://i815.or.kr/media_data/thesis/1989/198902.html<BR/><BR/>「朝鮮王朝の独島領有と日本帝国主義の独島侵略」 <BR/>『韓国独立運動史研究』3 (1989)<BR/>のち『独島の民族領土史研究』第3部 (1996) 知識産業社 所収<BR/><BR/><BR/>五 러일전쟁(露日戰爭)과 일본제국주의(日本帝國主義)의 독도침략(獨島侵略)<BR/><BR/>4. 일본해군(日本海軍)의 독도망루(獨島望樓) 설치 (設置)와 철거(撤去)<BR/><BR/>일제는 러 • 일전쟁(戰爭) 종결 직후 심지어 강원도(江原道) 울진군(蔚珍郡)의 죽변포(竹邊浦)에 설치했던 망루(望樓)를 철거할때 망루장(望樓長)과 일본상인(日本商人)이 결탁하여 일제가 강제징발해 사용한 망루지단(望樓地段)을 침탈(侵奪)하려고 시도했으며,220) 6개월간이나 분쟁과 교섭이 진행되다가 한국 의정부(議政府)의 노력에 의해 저지되기도 하였다. 221) <BR/><BR/>220) 『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. <BR/>일제는 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 망루(望樓)와 그 지단(地段)을 매집(賣却)했다하여 울진군수(蔚珍郡守)에게 인허공문(認許公文)의 발급을 요구하며 이의 침탈(侵奪)을 기도했다가 항의에 부딪혀 6개월간이나 분쟁이 일어 났다. <BR/><BR/>221) 『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)) 참조.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So, in1989, the Korean professor knew it was possible for the Korean Government at that time to deal with 日本統監, when 鬱島郡守沈興澤 reported about the Shimane prefecture’s delegation visited 鬱陵島 and told about 獨島in 1906 .<BR/><BR/>But he writes as below in conclusion. (七 맺음말) <BR/><BR/>I cannot understand his way of thinking.<BR/><BR/> (9)대한제국정부(大韓帝國政府)가 일본의 독도(獨島) 침탈(侵奪)을 알게 된 것은 1년 후인 1906년 3월 28일 도근현(島根縣) 은기도(隱岐島)의 지방관리(地方官吏) 일행이 독도(獨島)를 시찰한 다음 울릉도에 들리어 울도군수(鬱島郡守) 심흥택(沈興澤)에게 독도(獨島)를 일본영토(日本領土)로 「편입(編入)했음을 구두로 말했을 때였다. 경악한 울도군수는 이를 강원도관찰사(江原道觀察使)를 거쳐 내부대신(內部大臣)에게 보고했고, 내부대신(內部大臣)과 의정부(議政府) 참정대신(參政大臣)은 이 보고를 받고 독도(獨島)는 한국영토(韓國領土)임을 명확히 했으며, 일본의 이제 독도(獨島)가 일본영토(日本領土)로 되었다는 주장은 「전혀 근거(根據)가 없고(전속무근(全屬無根))」 「전혀 이치(理致)에 닿지 않는 것(필무기리(必無其理))」이라고 반박하는 지령문(指令文)을 내리었다. 또한 대한제국의 신문(新聞)들도 울도군수의 보고를 보도하면서 독도(獨島)가 일본영토(日本領土)로 되었다는 일본측의 주장에 항론(抗論)을 폈다. 그러나 1906년 3월말∼5월초의 이 시기는 이미 일제(日帝)가 1905년 11월 17일 「을사 5조약」을 강제 체결해서 대한제국의 외교권(外交權)을 박탈하고, 이어 1906년 1월 17일 대한제국의 외부(外部)가 완전히 폐지되었으며, 1906년 2월 1일부터는 일제통감부(日帝統監部)가 설치되고 활동을 시작하여 외교(外交)는 물론이요 한국의 내정(內政)까지도 완전히 지배하게 된 이후의 시기였다. 이러한 상태하에서 이 시기에는 대한제국정부(大韓帝國政府)와 한국인(韓國人)들은 일제의 독도(獨島) 침탈(侵奪)에 항의할 통로(通路)와 기관(機關)마저 빼앗겨 어찌할 수가 없었다. <BR/><BR/><BR/>As this document shows, it was possible to deal with 日帝統監部after 1906년 2월 1일.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-54790676692318077082008-11-19T22:38:00.000+09:002008-11-19T22:38:00.000+09:00Thanks, pacifist & chaamieyI think it literall...Thanks, pacifist & chaamiey<BR/><BR/>I think it literally estoppel Korean side from futher argument.<BR/><BR/>If you find any mistake or suggestion, please let me know. <BR/><BR/>matsuさんのアドバイスで、最初の1/3でこの資料の持つ意味を簡潔に説明して、出来るだけ分かり易くしたつもりです。本当は資料を最初に持って来たいのですが、なかなか読んでもらえないと思い、このスタイルにしました。原文の画像が手に入るといいのですが…Kaneganesehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533339719864245857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-4414205154773702562008-11-19T19:55:00.000+09:002008-11-19T19:55:00.000+09:00力作ですね。Kaneganeseさん御苦労様です。力作ですね。Kaneganeseさん御苦労様です。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-71103144342260923092008-11-19T07:16:00.000+09:002008-11-19T07:16:00.000+09:00Well-done, Kaneganese! I've waited for this post!K...Well-done, Kaneganese! I've waited for this post!<BR/><BR/>Korea could claim about Japan's deed, but they didn't claim about the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks. <BR/><BR/>They investigated about the matter but didn't claim - it was because they got to know that Liancourt Rocks were out of Korean territory. Korera's eastern limit was Ulleungdo (Jukdo of Ulleungdo) and it was a common sense written in various books and textbooks.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.com