1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are music record producers of each music source listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 3 (hereinafter “each music source of this case”) with companies mainly engaged in the distribution and sales of music records.

The Defendant, around December 2015, is a company engaging in the business, etc. of producing the instant program “E” (hereinafter “E”) and providing the program to the public for use by the general public. The Defendant provided the instant program users online with sound sources, including each of the instant sound sources.

B. The Defendant provided “F” and “E-Recommendation” services through the instant program.

F Services create and reproduce channels with one's own sound and listen to them on their own, and allow other users to listen to the sound source by accessing the channel.

E-recommended services are to analyze users’ desire to engage in the instant program and recommend the channels created by other users or the channels created by the Defendant, so that they can listen to the sound sources of the relevant channel.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant service”). C.

G, a music record producer, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that the instant service violated its transmission right. On September 27, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment of partly citing the content that “No sound source should be transmitted to the users of the instant program through the F service using the “channel Creation” function of the said program” (2016Gahap558355), and the Seoul High Court appealed on May 3, 2018 (2017Na2058510) but the Defendant appealed again, but the lower court became final and conclusive around September 13, 2018.

(c).