1. The Defendant’s corrective orders and orders indicated in the separate sheet issued by the Decision No. 2013-069, April 4, 2013, against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Status of the Plaintiff, etc., current status of its executives and employees, 6, 149 146, 63, 619 130, 963, 638 21, 572, 705 25.9 1946 4,1563, 623, 8563, 632 11,097, 197, 19584, 381 57, 844, 595 197, 197, 196363, 974, 97, 1964, 197, 197, 1964, 197, 1963, 1964, 197, 1963, 257, 1964, 257, 1965, 197, 25364, 197

Plaintiff

General status of the following table (based on fiscal year 2010, per unit: name, per million won, per annum).

B. On April 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a corrective order and a penalty surcharge payment order (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the following acts by the Plaintiff, etc. constitute “act of determining the price” under Article 19(1)1 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (hereinafter “the Act”).

Plaintiff

On August 30, 2002, through a series of meetings, information exchange, communication, etc. at variable pension insurance working groups, working division meetings, product department meetings, etc., agreed to set the minimum amount of death insurance coverage (GMDB) fee rate of 0.05% and the minimum amount of pension reserve (GMAB) fee rate of 0.5-0.6%, and implement it.

(However, the Defendant did not enter into an agreement on the GMAB fee rate. In addition to the instant disposition, four companies, including Samsung, are 0.1% of the GMFB fee rate applied to variable life insurance.