2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The reasons stated in this part are as follows, given that the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the court of first instance except for those written by the court as follows, they are cited including abbreviations pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 1 through 2, “F was changed to Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”)’s trade name”. “F Co., Ltd. was changed to D on March 24, 2017, and Defendant AK on March 23, 2018.”

Part 4 5 through 6 (the criteria for the reduction of letters except the marked part; hereinafter the same shall apply) "Plaintiffs" shall be added to "Defendant E".

Part 4 to 6 of the 5th parallel 4th parallel 6th parallel 1 shall be followed as follows:

Defendant E uses online golf courses provided by the screen golf range users through Q services, it uses the method in which shop owners deduct Q service usage fees from the number of screen golf users in accordance with the method and procedure designated by Defendant E. 5, respectively. Defendant E, a market dominant business entity, in the screen golf market where the plaintiffs claim compensation for damages due to the claim and the high-value sale, etc. of J-type products, sells the prices of J-type products at an unreasonably higher level compared to costs or prices of the same kind of products. The act of Defendant E is referred to as the “Fair Trade Act”

(1) The act of abuse of market-dominating positions prohibited by Article 3-2(1)1 constitutes “an act of unfairly determining, maintaining, or changing the price of goods or services” (hereinafter “price abuse”)

The Plaintiffs have purchased products in light of the fact that Defendant E had offered new products of the GS system every two years or three years, and only one year after the launch of J-type products.