1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to the Defendants, the phrase “total amount of personal use” in the attached amount table to each of the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "The grounds for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "In the case of denying the right to claim damages from the indirect purchaser, it results in unreasonable result of compelling the sacrifice of the indirect purchaser in the case of denying the right to claim damages from the indirect purchaser; and the indirect purchaser should accept again the inconvenience that the direct purchaser should make a return of unjust enrichment from the direct purchaser; in light of the domestic credit card payment market structure in Korea, the payment structure of the fees in the DDC service market, the portion of the fees in the payment structure and the cost of the DC service market, and the characteristics of the VN service, it appears that the U.S. indirect purchaser's legal doctrine can not be applied as it is in this case, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in the case of using the 36th page or below as follows.

2. Parts in height:

A. Damage caused by an illegal bid collusion in the calculation method of damages refers to the difference between the successful bid price formed by the collusion and the price formed in the event there was no collusion (hereinafter “provisional competition price”).

Here, the virtual competitive price should be calculated by the method of excluding only the increase in prices due to the collaborative act while maintaining other factors for price formation in the market in which the collaborative act occurred.

If there is no change in the economic conditions, market structure, terms and conditions, and other economic factors that affect the price formation of a specific product before and after the act of collusion, it is reasonable to calculate the virtual competitive price on the basis of the transaction price after the act of collusion is terminated, but if the factors affecting the price formation are remarkably changed after the termination of the act of collusion, such factors cannot be seen as such.

. In such cases.