??? ???? ??? ???10? ????? ? ��???'? ?? - ??? ???(��Ұ��Ҳ)? ��1877?? ?????? ??? [1877���̫����ָ��ˤĤ���]��? ?? ??? ??? ???? - (Interpretation of ��Other One Island(��һ�u)�� in the 10th Year of the Meiji Era based on the Methodology of Legal Interpretation - Focusing on a critical review of Nakano Tetsuya��s ��On the 1877 Taisei-kan)

??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??. ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??. ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ? ??.
???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???. ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ???10? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ??. ???? ???? ?? ???(�u���h��u���}�о���)?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???, 2023? ��?5? ��????? ?? ????��?????(�ڣ��� ����u���}���v�����{���о������g����)��? ?????.
? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???(��Ұ��Ҳ)? ��1877?? ?????? ???(1877���̫����ָ��ˤĤ���)��? ????? ????? ???. ??? ???(��Ұ��Ҳ)? ?????? ??? ��? ??��? ��???��? ??????, ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???. ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????. ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????. ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????, ??? ??(һҊ)?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????.
??? ??? ???? ��1877?? ?????? ???��? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???. ??? ??? ??? ? ? ?? ��?? ??��??????? ???? ��? ??��? ?? ???? ??? ???.

Japan has persistently claimed Dokdo as inherent territory of Japan. This claim has evolved from a theory of "terra nullius" (uninhabited land) to a theory of "inherent territory," as it stands today. However, the illusory nature of Japan's claim of inherent territory reveals its argument to be a mere mosaic of fragmented evidence.
Japan has been creating a fictitious theory to fuel its territorial dispute over Dokdo. In particular, they have continuously attempted to undervalue the significance of the 1877 Taisei-kan Directive, which is considered the Achilles' heel of their claim of inherent territory over Dokdo. The Shimane Prefectural Takeshima Issue Research Society has been at the forefront of these efforts, publishing an interim report titled "Investigation and Research on the Takeshima Issue" in 2023.
This paper aims to critically examine "On the 1877 Taisei-kan Directive" by Nakano Tetsuya, which is included in the aforementioned report. Nakano interprets the "��һ�u" (gai-ichit��, meaning "one other island") mentioned in the directive as "Ulleungdo," arguing that this negates the fact that Dokdo was within the territory of Joseon and later the Empire of Korea. To support his argument, he cites various historical documents and official records. However, Nakano's argument is nothing more than a biased one, pieced together from information that is favorable to his position. Despite the fact that legal documents should be interpreted based on legal principles, Nakano's interpretation is flawed, as he employs a methodology that lacks even a superficial understanding of law.
To critique Nakano's interpretation of the 1877 Taisei-kan Directive, this paper attempts a legal approach. Starting with the fundamental principle of "interpretation of law" in jurisprudence, various theories regarding "��һ�u" are examined.