1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The defendant is a distribution company of "B" (hereinafter "the game of this case"), which is a multi-level connection game for the portable communication device launched on December 14, 2016, and the plaintiffs are users of the game of this case.

The Plaintiffs were provided free of charge with the instant game service by concluding a contract to use the instant game (hereinafter “instant game use contract”) under the Defendant’s mobile service terms and conditions (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”).

Accordingly, the plaintiffs created virtual character in the game of this case and developed their character through the test, match, performance of duties, etc. while cooperating or competing with other users' character in cooperation with the character in the game of this case, and acquired various equipment and money (C) used in the game of this case.

In addition, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendant to use special equipment, content, etc. used in the instant game for a fee (hereinafter “instant item purchase contract”) and paid the amount indicated in the attached Table in return for the provision of the relevant item use service from the Defendant.

【In the absence of dispute, there is no ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 413 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, and the ground for claim as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant alleged by the plaintiffs as to the ground for claim that the defendant caused the plaintiffs to input a large amount of money for the purchase of the game of this case, thereby encouraging speculation, but did not take minimum protective measures such as restricting the amount of settlement, etc., and the contract for the purchase of the item of this case was made by using the plaintiffs' old-age, rash orless experience in the position of the weak, and thus, the purchase of the item of this case is null and void as it is contrary to social order or as an unfair legal act, and therefore the defendant must return the purchase price of