1. An order for correction listed in attached Form 1, which was issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2015 by the Decision No. 2015-398, as well as an order for correction.

1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff’s status is an organization established for the purpose of promoting common interests in relation to supervision services by certified architects who conduct construction business in the area of Chungcheongbuk-do, and constitutes an enterprisers’ organization under subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”).

The general status is as listed below:

Plaintiff’s general status (unit: name, thousand won, and as of 2014), the number of constituent members of the establishment date of the Plaintiff’s general status (as of January 232, 2013, January 1, 2013; 120,000

B. A certified architect’s supervision and Chungcheongbuk-do’s market status 1) is mainly engaged in design services, such as planning, construction design, and post-design management, and supervision conducted at the construction site. Of these, supervision is a construction site to verify the suitability of construction drawings and specifications and construction materials, etc., and is classified into supervision conducted by a specialized construction-supervising firm or a certified architect according to the scale of construction work, such as construction cost and number of households. 2) A certified architect in the Chungcheongbuk-do area is 30 as of the end of 2014. Of these, a certified architect belonging to the Plaintiff is 232, and among them, constitutes 70.3% of the total certified architect located in the Chungcheongbuk-do area

C. On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff enacted the rules of the Committee on Supervision of Construction Works (hereinafter “instant rules”) and the operational rules of the Committee on Supervision of Construction Works in Chungcheongbuk-do (hereinafter “instant operational rules”). Pursuant to each provision of the instant rules and the operational rules as seen below, the Plaintiff determined the standard price and the lowest price of supervision fees set out in the supervision service agreement between the constituent business entity and the owner of the building, and determined the ratio of supervision fees to be paid by the constituent business entity out of the supervision service agreement (hereinafter “determination of supervision fees in this case”), and ② the constituent business entity providing design services.