All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed parties) and the appointed parties.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the assertion that the application for resumption of pleading was illegally rejected

A. In principle, the court’s discretion whether to accept an application for resumption of oral argument when the parties filed an application for resumption of oral argument to submit evidence after the closing of oral argument.

However, the party who filed an application for resumption of pleading was unable to be given an opportunity to submit the argument due to the circumstances for which it is difficult for him to be held responsible prior to the closing of argument, and the subject matter of proof of the argument falls under the facts requiring proof of the outcome of the judgment, etc., where rendering a judgment against the party without giving the opportunity to submit the argument by resumption of pleading goes against the procedural justice pursued by the Civil Procedure Act, the court is obliged to resume the pleading and continue the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da20532, Oct. 28, 2010). B.

According to the records, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against the chief prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure of the investigation records related to the instant hacking incident, and the judgment partially revoking the said disposition became final and conclusive after the closing of argument in the lower court.

(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed an application for resumption of the pleadings to submit part of the investigation records which became available for inspection and copying as evidence.

(3) In addition, the Plaintiffs submitted as reference materials the daily security control report prepared by the employees of the Kanby-W Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yby-W”), traffic-related data submitted by the Defendant to the police, and E’s statement of statement of the police, which is an employee of the Defendant’s database technology team.

Then, this is.