(1) There are several interpretations of 1667 Japanese document Onsyusichougouki(隠州視聴合記), but at least it is clear that it didn't say liancourt rocks belonged to Korea.
(2) The fact that Tottori local government (鳥取藩) responded to the Shogunate that the both islands did not belong to Inaba, and Houki(因幡・伯耆) does not mean Japan ceded the territory because the document "Isotakeshimajiryaku" (礒竹島事略) edited by the officials who were supposed to be working for government did not make it clear the owner of the territory.
(3)Ahn's testimonies are filled with inconsistent locations about Liancourt rocks;moreover, the cognizance of a private person does not constitute the cognizance of the Government.
(4) There was absolutely no Korean map that depict Liancourt rocks.
(5)Even in the late Edo period, Japanese were cognizant of Liancourt as a mark of the en route to the North as exemplified in the map of the shipping trade.
(6)1786 map 三国通覧図説附図 by Hayashi Shihei was placed under ban by the government because the map was inaccurate. The map banned by the government does not constitute the ground for the title.
(7) In the 1877 document is written "takeshima and another island have nothing to do with Japan." First it does not say they belongs to Korea. Second the document attached the map of 1696 submitted by Tottori, but the map is not the revised map of 1724 by Tottori local government. Third , Japanese maps of around 1877 issued by government indicates Ulleungdo as "Matsuhima"(if "anther land" is Matushima, it does not make sense.) Hence there is little possibility that "another land" is Linacourt Rocks.
(8)There is little possibility that Korean 1900 document's "Seokto" was Liancourt rocks, but it is highly possible that it was Guanundo(観音島）
(9) The charts and Chosun waterway do not say Liancourt rocks are Korean, but they say the eastern boundary of Korea was Ullengdo. It is not possible to assume Japan recognised Liancurt rocks as Korean territory.