Reply to comment on “Tectonic and deformation history of the Gyeonggi Massif in and around the Hongcheon area, and its implications in the tectonic evolution of the North China Craton” by Yan et al. [Precambrian Res. (2014)]

•No evidence of the Permo-Triassic collision has been found from the Imjingang belt.•The Permo-Triassic collision evidences were found along the Hongseong-Odesan belt.•The Gyeonggi Massif should be divided into two parts by the Hongsoeng-Odesan belt.•The northern Gyeonggi Massif can be correlated to the North China Craton.•The southern Gyeonggi Massif can be correlated to the South China Craton.

The Imjingang belt has been considered as a suture between the North and South China Cratons without clear evidences of the Permo-Triassic collision. The lines of evidences of the Permo-Triassic collision reported by previous researchers from the Imjingang belt are found to be incorrect. Therefore, the Imjingang belt should not be referred as a suture between the North and South China Cratons. Instead of the Imjingang belt, the Hongseong-Odesan belt should be used as the collision boundary between the North and South China Cratons. The Hongseong-Odesan collision boundary can be supported by the Permo-Triassic eclogite in the Hongseong area and ca. 230 Ma post-collision igneous activities occurred regionally in the northern Gyeonggi Massif (GM). In the northern GM between the Imjingang and Hongseong-Odesan belts, no high-pressure metamorphism (e.g. eclogite, blueschist) was reported. The Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolution of the northern GM studied by Yangkhom et al. (2014) is more similar to those in the North Korea and eastern part of the North China Craton than those in the South China Craton. These data indicate that it is reasonable to consider the northern GM including the Hongcheon area, as a part of the North China Craton.