1. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs AM andN and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. Between the Plaintiff AM, NN and the Defendants.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, and except for additional determination as to the argument of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) as to this case, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance written "20 ............... 20 .......... 20 ........... ........... .......... ......... ........ ........ ........ ...... .......... .........

On the face of the judgment of the first instance, the following three parallel categories “(4)” is dismissed as “(d)”, and the following two parallel categories “(a)” is dismissed as “(1). The judgment of the first instance is divided into “(2)”, “(3)”, “(4)” and “(4)”, and “(4).”

“(5)”, “(6)”, “(5)”, “(6)”, “(5)”, “(5) of the 29th 14th 14th 29th 29th 29th 29th 29th 29th 29th 29th 29th 29th 14th 29th 29th 29th 14th 14th 1st 29th 30, “(1)” in the order of “(2)” and “(3)”, “30th 14th 15th 1th 1th 30.

The term "(b)", "(31), "31(c)", and "4(d)" in the first instance judgment shall be read as "(2)", "(3)", and "(4)", and "41(c)" shall be read as "3.

3. Additional determination as to Defendant A’s assertion

A. Defendant A asserted the violation of Article 9 of the Act on Measures to Secure the Safety of Personal Information, arguing that Article 9 of the Act on Measures to Secure the Safety of Personal Information is a provision to prevent damage or leakage of data using malicious software, and thus, the obligation to install a personal information leakage prevention program using the USB camera, such as this case, cannot be derived.