2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendants’ share in the domestic radio communication market as of December 31, 2012, as of December 31, 2012, as telecommunication service providers operating a smartphone radio network, is 50.3% of Defendant Ecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Ecom”) and 30.8% of Defendant Kcom (hereinafter “Defendant K”), respectively.

B. The Defendants introduced a fare system that combines voice calls, text services, and data communications (hereinafter “integrated fare system”), and sent low-price integrated franking goods that completely prohibit mobile Internet phones (hereinafter “m-VoIP”) from holding voice calls, etc. using the Internet network, such as Kakaox Services, and mobile-VoIPs (hereinafter “m-VoIP”).

C. Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are users who entered into a contract for the use of radiophones between Plaintiff H, I, J, K, L, L, M, N,O, and P, and the rest of the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff M and P entered into an integrated fare system at a low price at which the full restriction of m-VoIP services is entirely limited. 【Ground for recognition” without any dispute, Plaintiff A, 1, 2, and 3 evidence (including virtual numbers, and the purport of the entire arguments, as a whole.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Defendants’ act of not providing m-VoIP services to consumers who subscribed to the m-VoIP system of 30,000 Won and 40,000 Won Won, constitutes an act of disadvantageous offer, which is one of the abuse of trade positions, among unfair trade practices prohibited by the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), and thus, Article 56 of the Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

The plaintiffs are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages.

B. The Defendants, in order to block the use of m-VoIP services by users whose m-VoIP services are restricted, shall carry out data communication details of users, i.e., DepPPP Section.