Newly discovered document for Korean title to Dokdo!?

SEOUL, Nov. 20 (Yonhap) -- The Japanese government, in an unprecedented move, has acknowledged the existence of a 19th-century document that could prove Japan's longstanding claim over Dokdo, a set of South Korean islets, to be groundless.
Yohan

Wow Did Japanese government finally admit it? ----Which document?

Responding to Yonhap's latest written inquiry sent to Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, however, the ministry said it knows about the existence of the document drawn up by the Japanese government body called "Daijokan" in Japanese and "Taejeonggwan" in Korean.

Do you mean 1877 Dajoukan documents? It has been well known among Korean and Japanese
researchers. Even an amature like me has already posted it
Armature foreign historians like wedgie and Lovmo knew its existence,
I am sure Japanese government has known it.It is no secret!! When did Japanese government reject acknowledging it ?

And the discussion has taken place between Korean side and Japanese side.

In 1876 document, Internal affair office asked Shimane prefecture about the island 100 ri or so off Oki in the North Sea.This is not about Dokdo because Dokdo is located 80 ri off Oki. This island is probably Ulleungodo or Gwanundo.
In respond to the request, Shimane answered this issue should be sent to Dajoukan with the attached 1877 document.
Let's examine the attached document.
(1)If we focus on the distance in the document and the distance on the map attached. it surely looks as if Matsushima is Dokdo.
(2)However, if we focus on other parts of document describing Matsushima and the Gwanundo on the map it agree with the descriptions of Ulleungdo (or Gwanundo)
The ambiguity remains.
Next let's examine Dajoukan's document. It says Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima and another island.
Takeshima refers to Ulleungdo.The problem is what the "another island" refers to.
The same ambiguity remains.
(a) It might refer to dokdo according to the first interpretation (1)
(b) it might refer to Ulleugdo or Gwanundo according to the second interpretation(2).Moreover if we assume Japan knew the name of Dokdo as Matushima, and yet , she did not use that name "Matsushima" to refer to another land, then it is probable that she did not mean Dokdo by "another island .In addition, considering the fact that Dajoukan made a statement in respond to Shimane and 1876 document above which talked only about the island 100 ri or so off Oki, another island is less likely to be Dokdo.
In any case,

A The ambiguity remains.
B This is internal documents, It does not admit Korea had effective control and Korea did not recognize Dokdo at this time anyway. So it does not affect Japanese title to Dokdo.
C Japan included Dokdo in 1905 when Korea had no effective control over Dokdo before.So this document itself has nothing to do with the title to Dokdo after all.BBS #15/20/16 wedgie/opp/ponta at opp's home page

I wonder why the major Korean newspaper wrote as if Japanese government had admitted the document for the first time.