I don't know what the purporse of submiting re-review request is if the specialist would never accept that the fact I wasn't wrong even though I keep presenting proof and examples

Just because I got an email which says the decision is final so I can't submit more request about the same job, my work will be remained as wrong.

What the hell is this?

So when I got the first feedback for the job, they corrected my work in grammatically different way. I was still seeing them it is okay to write in my way so I showed them some proof and explained why it isn't wrong and still be okay to construct that sentence in that way. but the reply from them was that the structure is still grammatically wrong. 

For the second re-review request, I've showed them the other proof and examples. The structure of the example sentence from the Standard Korean Dictionary is as same as I used for the job. And even I got confirmation from the National Institute of the Korean Language that there are no grammatical errors in my work.

And today I got an email from the quality team
the email says:

- First, I agree with the translation saying 'technology' still could be a subject in Korean. The National Institute of Korean language says as below.

무생물이 주어가 되는 문장이 국어 문법에 어긋나는 것은 아닙니다. 국어 문장에서도 무생물이 주어인 것은 얼마든지 찾아볼 수 있습니다. 문제가 될 만한 것은 충분히 인물을 주어로 내세워 자연스러운 우리말 표현이 가능한데도 무생물을 주어로 내세워 사동 표현이나 피동 표현으로 쓰는 경우입니다. 가령 '우리는 이번 사고로 두려움을 느꼈다.'와 같은 문장이 훨씬 자연스러운 우리말 표현인데, 이것을 '이번 사고는 우리에게 두려움을 느끼게 했다.'와 같이 표현하면 번역 투의 느낌이 강해지게 됩니다. 그러나 그러한 번역 투라 하더라도 모두 우리말에서 문법적으로 불가능한 것은 아니므로, 무조건 배척하기는 어려울 듯합니다.

It sounds like a translated tone (literal translation), but sometimes acceptable.

However, the translation still needs to be fixed because "그것" is not specific. The reader can presume what it is via the context, but even the source text contains the word 'the impossible'. I don't understand why the translation changed 'the impossible' to just 'it(그것)'.

So, at least, the translation should be like "기술로 불가능이 가능해졌습니다" or "기술이 불가능을 가능하게 했습니다". -

So now, they are insisting that I made a mistake to choose the wrong word(it) not the structure of the sentence. How ridiculous it is lol
I sent them an email again saying that I've already explained why I translated in that way and chose that word at the very first re-review request. But since there's no third opportunity to submit the re-review request for the same job, my work should be remained as wrong.

my third email to reply the specialist is below -

As I mentioned at the very first re-review request, I was saying that I've already mentioned 'the impossible(불가능) before the comma as '노래에서 드럼과 퍼커션을 분리하는 것은 구워낸 빵에서 밀가루와 달걀을 추출하는 것처럼 (불가능)했지만'.
Therefore, it is still be okay to not to mention 'the impossible(불가능)' and change the word into 'it(그것)' after the comma which is 'but the rapidly evolving technologies make the impossible possible!(빠르게 발전하는 기술이 그것을 가능하게 하였습니다.)'. And it is VERY SPECIFIC that you understand what the word 'it' indicates because nobody really reads only few words but all of the sentences to understand the context.
After the comma, the 'IT(그것)' indicates not only 'the impossible' but the whole sentence before the comma(노래에서 드럼과 퍼커션을 분리하는 것은 구워낸 빵에서 밀가루와 달걀을 추출하는 것처럼 불가능했지만). Is that clear now?
And let me clearly show you why I did use 'it' showing you an example.
Please refer to the following link: (https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/b104a57bedf147ebb53260dd837d9dea)
Find this explanation of the word 'it' - 2. '앞에서 이미 말한 것이나 알려져 있는 대상을 가리키는 말'
which in English says 'IT(그것)' can mean something you already mentioned before or an object that has been already known.

To conclude, there is no wrong word used or no wrong structure in this job. They say it is still acceptable, then why on earth should it be marked as wrong?
Unless you are asking me to make a direct translation of the English text translating all the words so eventually you mark it as wrong saying it is an awkward literal translation

I also personally enquired this to the same institute. and I got the same result that there are no grammatical errors or misreadings. Contact me if you want to see the proof from the institute.