the communications data of Complainants from the telecommunications business operators, and Complainants became aware of the cause of action at the time when the telecommunications business operators gave them the notice of the provision of their communications data. Nonetheless, as the Telecommunications Business Act does not adopt procedures to notify users when a telecommunications business operator furnishes communications data to the investigative agency et al., there is no way for users to know whether their communications data were submitted to the investigative agency et al. unless they ask the operator for the information of current status of provision of personal information to a third party in accordance with Article 35, Section (1) of the “Personal Information Protection Act.” In this case, some Complainants filed the complaint after one year had elapsed from the time the investigative agency et al. obtained the communications data, but as the Telecommunications Business Act does not implement an ex-post notification procedure under which Complainants would become aware of the provision, Complainants were not negligent nor responsible for not recognizing that the cause of action, or the fundamental rights violation, had occurred. Therefore, although some Complainants filed the complaint after one year had elapsed from the date on which the cause of action, or the fundamental rights infringement, had occurred, justifiable grounds for the delay should be acknowledged. However, Complainants Y.B., P.H., S.S., K.J., and J.M. in 2016Hun-Ma388 received the notice of the provision of their communications data by the telecommunications business operators and filed the complaint after 90 days had elapsed from the date on which the cause of action, or the violation of their fundamental rights, arose. Since there are no justifiable grounds for the delay, they failed to satisfy the time limit requirement for filing, and their complaint is, thus, non-justiciable. - 40 -