1. On April 19, 2013, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to take a disciplinary warning (or equivalent measure) against B corporation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 3, 2010 to October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff served as the representative director of a stock company B (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. From August 16, 2012 to August 23, 2012, and from August 27, 2012 to August 29, 2012, the Defendant conducted a field inspection on the calculation process and calculation adequacy of the motor vehicle insurance premium rate for the instant company during the period from January 1, 2007 to August 29, 2012.

C. On April 19, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to take a disciplinary measure equivalent to the disciplinary measure against the instant company pursuant to Article 18(1)3 of the former Regulations on Inspection and Punishment of Financial Institutions (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2013-43, Dec. 20, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Apr. 19, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Apr. 19, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 2014, Apr. 19, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Apr. 19, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 20144, Dec. 20, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 201358, Feb. 3, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 23568, Feb. 3, 2013).

(hereinafter “Disposition.” According to Article 129 of the Insurance Business Act for Unfair Calculation of Premium Rates of Automobile Insurance (Principles for Calculation of Insurance Premium Rates), in calculating the basic insurance premium rates for personal automobile insurance, which was sold on June 8, 2012 (Commencement of Liability on July 10, 2012), the company used statistical data of which loss investigation expenses are omitted, and delayed claims in calculating the estimated rate of damages.