2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. When referring to each of the plaintiffs below, the indication "stock company" is omitted.

Pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Distribution and Price Stabilization of Agricultural and Fishery Products (hereinafter referred to as the “Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution Act”) and Article 13 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Agricultural and Fishery Products Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance”), corporations whose permission for intermediate wholesale business has been renewed with respect to Cheongjudys of the Seoul Metropolitan Government H Wholesale and Fishery Products Agricultural and Fishery Products

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who has the market manager of H wholesale market pursuant to Article 21 of the Agricultural and Fishery Marketing Act.

The Plaintiffs, as indicated in the corresponding column in attached Form 2, concluded a facility use contract with the Intervenor for each business facility shop located within H wholesale market with each supplementary auction participant, etc., and paid facility usage fees or occupation fees to the intervenors, and possessed a specific area and run an intermediate wholesale business such as overwork, collection, etc.

C. From December 2015 to March 2016, the Intervenor conducted a detailed investigation into the actual conditions of the intermediary store’s business (hereinafter “instant fact-finding survey”), and the Defendant, based on the results of the instant fact-finding survey, on July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 25(5)2 of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution Act by “a person who lends his/her right to permission for intermediary wholesale business to another person by allowing his/her employees, etc. to conduct independent business at a place other than his/her own store,” and the remaining Plaintiffs violated Article 74(1) of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Distribution Act by “a person who violates the standards for use of major facilities, such as allowing employees, etc. to conduct independent business at his/her own store,” and accordingly, was subject to the disposition of business suspension for each three months (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. The Plaintiffs are the instant parties.