1. The designated parties listed in the list of the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) caused a hacking incident in which the Plaintiffs’ personal information collected by the Defendant under a membership agreement was leaked due to the cause of the instant claim, and the Defendant attached thereto.

2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs should compensate for damages equivalent to property damage and consolation money caused by the above hacking incident, since it was caused by a mistake that did not fulfill the duty of care to protect personal information under the law or contract.

First, among the plaintiffs, attached Form

1. In the case of each of the designated parties listed in the list Nos. 1 through 17, 1800 through 2241, 2653 through 2827, and 2855 through 2882 (hereinafter “part of designated parties”), there is no evidence to acknowledge that the personal information was leaked due to the above hacking accident (in the case of the plaintiffs, the notification or confirmation to the effect that the personal information was leaked from the defendant is attached to each party’s appointment), and there is no reason to further examine the remaining claims of this case by some of the designated parties.

2. The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 43 (the evidence No. 54, Gap evidence No. 57), Gap evidence No. 56, Eul evidence No. 17-1 through 14, Eul evidence No. 18-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 18-30, Eul evidence No. 42, Eul evidence No. 51, Eul evidence No. 54-1 through No. 54, and Eul's evidence No. 54-1 through No. 4, and the whole purport of this court's verification results on the database server access records.

The status of the parties 1.