All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, B, E, and H, the lower court determined that all the above Defendants constituted “a person who was or was engaged in the management of personal information” under Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, and rejected the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine alleged on a different premise.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant statutes and legal principles as well as the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the status and character of the representative meeting of occupants and the subject of Article 59 subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, contrary to what is alleged

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant C and F, the above Defendants failed to submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the submission period for the grounds for appeal, and failed to state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal by the above Defendants to the purport that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles are not alleged as grounds of appeal, and it is not a matter subject to judgment ex officio by the court below, and thus, it is not a legitimate ground of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1604, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.). 3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.