1. The part of the instant lawsuit, which rejected a claim for prohibition and an indirect compulsory performance.

2. Plaintiff A, C, and .

Basic Facts

The original status of the Plaintiff Company B (Registration Number: K) changed the company’s trade name to Plaintiff A, and part of the company was divided and established on March 3, 2015, Plaintiff C (Registration Number: L) and Plaintiff D Co., Ltd.

(hereinafter “Plaintiff” regardless of whether it was before or after the division. The Defendants are the entrepreneurs who operate screen golf business by purchasing a golf Formula 1 player developed, manufactured, or sold by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the above entrepreneurs”).

H Business entities, which were Defendant F, M, N, andO’s main axis, organized an Emergency Countermeasure Committee on December 12, 2014 (hereinafter “Non-Subrogation”), and the Defendants were affiliated with the said Non-Subrogation Act.

Since then, around January 2015, the Passociation (hereinafter “instant association”) was established as the main axis of the above non-Subrogation members. Defendant F was in charge of the position of the chief executive officer of the said association, Defendant E was in charge of the position of the chief executive officer of the Gyeongnam Branch of the said association.

In the event of a dispute between the Plaintiff and H enterprisers, the Plaintiff is engaged in the development and supply of screen golf-related game software, etc., and constitutes a business entity under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

On August 11, 2014, the Fair Trade Commission imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 4,894,00,000 on H enterprisers on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an act of coercion of trade and abuse of trade position as follows.

Since June 2009, the Plaintiff limited the choice of a professional projector in selling a golf Formula 2 (hereinafter “GS system”) to H business entities from June 2009.

H An act of abuse of trade position against H business entities: The Plaintiff did not compensate for appropriate business losses even in cases where the GS system, which the Plaintiff sold to H business entities from February 26, 2010, caused damages to the said business entities due to the Plaintiff’s failure to meet the Plaintiff’s obligation.

In addition, from January 31, 2008.