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

A. Defendant Samsung Ecom, Defendant KT, and Defendant LBS (hereinafter collectively referred to as “three mobile communications companies”) are mobile communications business operators with the purpose of information and communications business, information and communications equipment sales business, etc., and Defendant Samsung Electronic and Defendant LB (hereinafter collectively referred to as “manufacturer”) are mobile communications business operators with the purpose of manufacturing and selling mobile devices.

Since the mobile communication consumer can enjoy the benefit of the use of the mobile communication service and the mobile communication device together, the mobile communication service and the mobile communication device are complementary, and due to these reasons, the entrusted agency of the mobile communication company sells the product combined with the large mobile communication service and the device to the consumer.

B. On July 10, 2012, the Fair Trade Commission: (a) granted subsidies from the mobile communications company or manufacturer company to the mobile communications company from 2008 to 2010; (b) individually, through consultation on each model with respect to the mobile device (the mobile phone price (the mobile phone price sold by the mobile communications company to the mobile communications company) and the ex-factory price (the price supplied by the mobile communications company to the mobile communications company) to be paid to consumers, and (c) granted subsidies from the mobile communications company (the out-of-agreement) to be created when the consumers purchase the mobile device and then purchased the device at a low-priced rate, thereby inducing them to mislead them into purchasing the device at a low-priced rate, thereby inducing them to purchase the device (hereinafter “the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act”).