## 5 Conclusions  
This comparative analysis of GAMIT/GLOBK and Bernese GNSS solutions in the KGD2002 frame leads to several important conclusions. First, the coordinate solutions from the two different software packages are highly consistent with each other and with the official datum. Across \(\sim\)3000 control points, horizontal coordinate discrepancies are mostly at the few-millimeter level, with no significant systematic offset in either the north or east component. This indicates that the KGD2002 realization is fundamentally sound and that independent processing strategies can reproduce the reference frame to a high degree of fidelity. Such consistency is a reassuring finding for the geodetic quality of the network and suggests that day-to-day GNSS processing (whether with GAMIT, Bernese, or similar tools) will yield virtually interchangeable results in the current static datum. Second, despite the overall agreement, we identified small but significant discrepancies with clear spatial patterns. Certain regions--most notably in the southwest periphery--exhibit higher dispersion and slight biases on the order of 1-3 mm, pointing to the influence of network geometry and possibly unmodeled environmental or processing effects. These discrepancies, though minor for most practical surveying purposes, have scientific implications: they hint at underlying issues such as minor frame misalignments or localized deformation. For high-precision applications (e.g., deformation monitoring or combining solutions from different software), even a few millimeters of bias can be consequential. Thus, the results emphasize the need for consistent processing strategies and careful datum realization. In particular, the fact that one solution showed a southwest-directed bias relative to the datum suggests that further investigation into reference frame alignment procedures--such as the weighting of reference stations or the regional handling of atmospheric models--could further improve national adjustment strategies. Third, this study highlights the limitations of maintaining a static datum like KGD2002 in the long term. The observed regional offsets are likely symptoms of the datum's aging; as time progresses; such distortions will inevitably accumulate unless the datum is periodically updated or replaced. The practical implication is that users of KGD2002 must be cautious when integrating data from different epochs, as unmodeled plate motion may introduce errors exceeding the centimeter level over multiple decades. While such errors may be negligible for general mapping, they become increasingly significant for geodetic and engineering-grade precision. From a scientific perspective, the implication is clear: to support emerging geoscience needs--such as tracking subtle ground motion or monitoring sea-level change--the reference frame must be as temporally dynamic and precise as the phenomena being measured. Finally, looking ahead, the findings strongly support modernizing the national reference frame. Adopting a dynamic or semi-dynamic datum tied to ITRF2020 would resolve the slowly accumulating inconsistencies and align the Republic of Korea with international geodetic standards. Recent studies on modern dynamic reference frames have demonstrated substantial improvements in accuracy and internal consistency when nonlinear station motions are properly modeled [3]. Countries such as Malaysia have already adopted semi-kinematic frameworks based on ITRF2014, which define both coordinates and station velocities to allow time-dependent positioning without frequent re-surveying [35]. Transitioning to ITRF2020--or its future successors--will play a crucial role in ensuring that Korea's geodetic infrastructure remains interoperable with international systems and aligned with the latest scientific standards. In particular, to support this transition, it is essential to develop a comprehensive transformation framework from KGD2002 to ITRF2020.