1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, or as to the Plaintiff’s assertion added by this court as set forth in paragraph 2 below, and as to the Plaintiff’s assertion added by this court as set forth in paragraph 3, the reasoning for the court’s determination is as stated in the reasoning of the court’s first instance judgment. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Each "Chowon District Prosecutors' Office" of the second 13 Phowon District Prosecutors' Office of the first 13 Phowon District Public Prosecutors' Office of the second 13 Phowon District Public Prosecutors' Office of the third 7 Phowon District Public Prosecutors' Office of the second 13 Phowon District Public Prosecutors' Office.

(b) the 7th 18th 18th am of the first instance judgment.

Then, “The Plaintiff re-appealed against the decision to dismiss the said appeal, but the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office dismissed the said re-appeal on May 27, 2020, and thereby became final and conclusive a non-prosecution disposition that did not have any suspicion.

“” shall be added.

(c)

The 10th 10th 10th 10th am of the first instance judgment "B Nos. 1, 2, and 15" shall be written with "B No. 1, 2, 15, and 24."

(d)

The 11th judgment of the first instance court shall not be in the form of 14 pages.

The following shall be added between " and "in accordance with":

The Plaintiff is likely to cause enormous economic loss, such as undermining the Plaintiff’s trust due to the divulgence of personal credit information by the Intervenor, imposing penalty surcharges on the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 42-2 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act, or claiming damages against the Plaintiff by the customer who suffered damage from the divulgence of personal credit information.

The argument is asserted.

Article 46(1)2 of the Organization Convention provides that “When a person causes a huge loss of property to A by intention or negligence,” is dismissed, and in interpreting the same disposition as that of the Organization Convention, the explicit provision cannot be interpreted disadvantageously to the worker (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Du41532, Nov. 29, 2018). Thus, the Plaintiff is not a specific loss of property.