We fully agree with the reviewer's comment that integration between services is difficult not only in smart cities but also in other fields. As advised by the reviewer, the situation in Korea was described in Figure 5 (Outbreak of COVID-19 in Korea and the limitations of smart city services) and Table 10 (Limitations of smart city services in each phase). The spread of COVID cannot simply be blocked by smart city services, but by simplifying the current state and proceeding with the thesis, we did not reflect Korea's medical stage with geographic characteristics. We will conduct additional research in the future to fully reflect the reviewer's comments. Thanks for the advice.
The content of the paper raises major concerns as well. In the introduction, I could not understand the motivation of the paper. The authors argue that the smart city services failed to be flexible enough to predict and fight the pandemic. However, I am lacking a concrete example of failure that proves the authors’ point. It is well-known that different services are hard to integrate together (this is not specific to the smart city), but I would have liked the authors to illustrate in light of the pandemic context, and maybe to the context of Korea since their contribution is specific to this geographic context in that it integrates the 12 smart city categories of Korea and the healthcare phases of Korea. The contribution is not presented in the introduction, only the problem is.