1. The proviso of paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the attached Table 1, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff via Resolution B on July 10, 2012, are applicable.

1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff’s status is a business operator under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “Fair Trade Act”), who engages in manufacturing, selling, etc. of communications machinery, tools, etc.

B. The Plaintiff, C Co., Ltd., and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “three manufacturers”) formed a three competitive system for manufacturers, including (1) the total share of which as of the year 2010 exceeds approximately 85%, in the domestic mobile phone manufacturing market (hereinafter “terminal”) in the mobile phone manufacturing market.

On the other hand, since 2009, smartphones for overseas investigation such as E are being introduced, and competition is deepened.

In 2008, A 50% A 50% 51% C 52% C 26% 20% D 13% E 11% 13% E 14% 13% 7% 4% G 2% 3% 2%, and 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% in the domestic mobile communication service market. (2) In the domestic mobile communication service market, the current status of the mobile communication service market, the mobile operator, H, I, and J (hereinafter referred to as the “three mobile communications companies”) form three mobile communications systems. The market share of these three mobile communications companies shows almost high in the amount since 207.

On March 2008, 2007, H 50.5% 50.5% 50.5% 50.6% 50.6% 132.1% 31.5% 31.3% 31.6% J 17.5% 18.0% 18.0% 18.1% 18.8% 17.8% 3% 18.0% 18.0% 17.8% 3% 2008, considering the average expected profit per policyholder and the mobile device subsidy created from the manufacturer survey incentive, the Korea Communications Commission seems to be a discriminatory act under the Telecommunications Business Act.