Many scholars across Korea and Japan states Korean Confucianism was transmitted to Japan by scholars raised by Toigye about the time of Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592. However, it is the aftermath of the attempt to dramatize the spread of Korean Confucianism, and claim the impartation had taken place much earlier, as Toigye’s scholarly work grabbed a huge attention in Japan during 17th to 18th century. Huh Sung, having been received a spotlight from long before by imparting Korean Confucianism to Fujiwara Seika, was often referred to as a pupil of Ryu Hee-chun, one of three students nurtured by Toigye. Yet, Huh Sung’s scholastic lineage was very different from the work of Toigye. Huh Sung and his family pursued the path paved by Seo Gyeong-deok and Kim Ahn-kook, featuring embracing and eclectic approach, which is clearly shown in Huh Sung’s writing drafted for Seika . Kang Hang, also widely known as the one who played a crucial role in supporting Seika’s establishment of Japanese Confucianism, can hardly be called as Toigye’s disciple. Kang Hang learned from Seong Hon, and politically, belonged to the sect of Seoin. He usually stood against Toigye’s pupils. Another notable point is, it is completely obscure when and how Kang Hang imparted Confucianism to Seika. Kim Sung-il is another figure who is pointed as an introducer of Korean Confucianism. It is incontestable that he is a pupil of Toigye. Notwithstanding, it is hard to agree with the contention that he transmitted Korean Confucianism, particularly that of Toigye, to Seika in 1590. Albeit it is fact that Kim Sung-il met Seika along with Korean delegation, whether they continued interacting with each other is unproven. Moreover, it is highly unlikely for them to have devoted exchange of knowledge. Hence, the idea of Korean Confucianism, centered by the work of Toigye, introduced to Japan about the time of Japanese Invasion of Korea in 1592 should better be re-examined. Many believe Seika was directly influenced by Toigye’s scholarly work. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence demonstrating Seika’s view on Toigye’ Confucianism. In that, it is hard to say Seika was greatly affected by Toigye. Rather, more plausible theory would be growing interests towards Korean Confucianism driven by the distribution of Korean publications taken away from the country during the war among elites in Japan, and more frequent dispatch of Korean delegation to Japan from 17th century made Toigye the most representative scholar of Korean Confucianism, more popular. Overall, further research on this topic should follow.