1. On December 3, 2015, the Defendant’s each disposition of ordering the return of subsidies as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, which was issued against the Plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. E A. The incorporated farming association (hereinafter “instant corporation”) is a corporation established for the purpose of the reduction processing business, and the Plaintiffs are members of the instant corporation that completed the payment of invested property as follows.

The Plaintiff’s name investment ratio (%) A 600,000,000 2 B 600,000,000 30 C 195,000,000 30 C 195,000,0009 4 D 600,000,000 30

B. Around September 2008, the instant corporation applied for a subsidy of KRW 700 million to the Defendant on the condition that the instant corporation would pay KRW 300 million to the Defendant for the instant business (hereinafter “the instant business”). Accordingly, the Defendant selected the instant corporation as a business entity around October 2008 and added the conditions of the grant while granting a subsidy of KRW 700 million to the instant corporation on February 11, 2009. The main contents are as follows.

The terms and conditions of the subsidy - the faithfully subsidized project shall be implemented with due care as a good manager in accordance with the purpose of the subsidy and the terms and conditions

- When a subsidy is used for other purposes or is in violation of the purpose, terms and conditions of the subsidy grant and the relevant legislation, the full or partial revocation of the decision to grant the subsidy and the revocation order may be issued for the revoked portion.

- A facility or equipment installed with a subsidy may not be used for a purpose inconsistent with the purpose of granting the subsidy, or transferred, exchanged, or leased without any legislation, rule, or approval.

C. The instant corporation completed H (hereinafter “instant place of business”) on the ground of two lots, G in Cheongbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do, Cheongbuk-do, and two lots, which received subsidies from the Defendant.

Then, on January 28, 201, the Defendant concluded a real estate trust agreement with respect to the instant place of business and its site on October 22, 2010 and did not use the facilities of the instant place of business without prior approval.