prof mianagawa what south korea had to prove was to have acquired stronger title before the shimane prefecture incorporation that is korea is necessary to prove that korean title had substituted to the title by the effective occupation before it was incorporated by shimane however the effective control by korea has not been proven at all the discussion such as not being possible to protest is meaningless if korea cannot prove this prof daijyudo it is meaningless even if it is assumed that korea was not able to protest after february because korea did not do though it was able to control effectively before they did not manage the sea lions hanting prof serita japan made the sea lion hanting a licence system syc peaceful effective control of japan continued like this till ww the judicial precedent that supports these insistences has been presented and does the judicial precedent that supports the insistence of a dipsy korean scholer who cannot even the accurate quotation of the book thank you