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

A. The Defendant Company is a company established for the purpose of the measurement of radiation dose and radioactivity and the reading business. Defendant E is a person working as the representative director of the Defendant Company from March 12, 2014 to March 12, 2014. The Plaintiff A is a shareholder who owns the shares of the Defendant Company at each ratio of 8.215% (25,480 shares/310,160 shares), Plaintiff B is 4.108% (12,740 shares/310,160 shares) and Plaintiff C is 0.645% (2,00 shares/310,160 shares).

B. On November 30, 2015, the Defendant Company received a disposition from the Director of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to revoke the registration of an agency that measures exposure dose of radiation-related workers (hereinafter “measurement agency”) based on Article 6(5)1 and 5 of the Regulations on the Safety Control of Radiation emitting Devices for Diagnosis (hereinafter “Safety Control Regulations”) and Article 17(1) [Attachment 5] of the Regulations on the Safety Control of Diagnosis (hereinafter “Safety Control Regulations”), and received a disposition from the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission on March 15, 2016 on the ground that “the failure to meet the standards for registration of dosimeter reading service providers” as stipulated in Article 79 of the Nuclear Safety Act and [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and Article 98(1) of the Nuclear Safety Act and Article 127 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act on the ground that “the violation of the obligation to report dosimeter reading and the violation of the obligation to report” was “the violation of the obligation to report”.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant administrative disposition”) c.

On April 29, 2016, in order to hold the Defendant Company liable for the instant administrative disposition that the Defendant Company received, the Plaintiffs demanded the Defendant Company’s board of directors to convene a provisional shareholders’ meeting as an agenda for dismissal of Defendant E. The Defendant Company’s board of directors convened a provisional shareholders’ meeting as of June 24, 2016 (hereinafter “instant provisional shareholders’ meeting”). However, the instant provisional shareholders’ meeting was rejected at the instant provisional shareholders’ meeting.

On the other hand, the defendant company was 2016Guhap50846 of the Seoul Administrative Court.

The Director of the Disease Control Headquarters as described in the paragraph shall be the measuring agency.