Th study is very well articulated and concise, it provides valuable information and metodologies for assessing the seismic hazard and risk, having in view the seismic activity in the South Korean region and is neighboring. There are presented 4 widely used declusttering methods, a newly completed unified earthquake catalog for the  Korean Peninsula and the adjacent regions and the assessment of its completeness. The electronic supplement is valuable too as it comprises: the homogegenous earthquake catalog, the declustered earthquake catalog based on each 4 methods and the completeness analysis results. I strongly recommend the article to be published, as important asset for the scientific community, with the mention that for a better view the figures 8, 9, 11, 13 to be a little more zoomed out.

Please see all comments in the attached file.

The study compiles an extensive earthquake catalog (1905–2023) using multiple reliable sources (KMA, ISC, JMA) and ensures consistency through magnitude conversion. It offers a robust seismicity assessment by applying four declustering methods and using Stepp’s method and CUVI for completeness analysis. The research highlights earthquake clustering in South-eastern Korea, aiding seismic hazard and risk assessments, and provides a strong foundation for microzonation and engineering applications. Its well-structured methodology enhances clarity and reproducibility. However, certain aspects require further point-by-point explanations:

1. More recent literature on earthquake catalogs of the Korean Peninsula could be added to the introduction section to clarify how this study stands out in comparison.
2. Figure 3 and 4, M represents various types of magnitude scales. If the magnitudes scales could be defined by separate colours it would be better.
3. Annual reporting of earthquakes with magnitude (all types) ≥2.0 in the study region from the three major agencies: ISC, KMA and JMA database can be shown in a comparative plot for better understanding of the event counts and temporal variation.
4. The study uses several magnitude conversion equations from past research. Were any validations performed on the converted magnitudes to check for biases or inconsistencies?
5. This study shows a comparison between four different techniques for declustering of the events comprehensively. What do you think? Which one is the best in this case?
6. The study applies four different declustering techniques to identify mainshocks and remove dependent events. Were foreshocks considered in the declustering process, or does the analysis focus only on aftershocks? If not, could these methods be adapted to distinguish foreshocks as well?