Around October 2008, the Plaintiff requested that the Plaintiff designate Defendant Gwangju City Mayor as intangible cultural heritage and recognize himself as a holder of intangible cultural heritage (hereinafter “instant designation”).

The defendant Gwangju metropolitan City announced the designation and announcement of intangible cultural heritage in the defendant Gwangju metropolitan City as a cultural heritage subject to the pre-announcement of designation on March 9, 2012, and the plaintiff as a holder of the pre-announcement of the designation of intangible cultural heritage in Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "the pre-announcement of this case"), and publicly announced it as Gwangju Metropolitan City C.

After the deliberation and resolution of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Cultural Heritage Committee, a civil petition filed several times to the effect that the plaintiff should not be recognized as a holder of B, the Gwangju Metropolitan City Cultural Heritage Committee under the jurisdiction of the defendant Gwangju Metropolitan City City (hereinafter referred to as the "Gwanju Cultural Heritage Committee") decided to suspend the designation of this case until the above civil petition is dismissed on April 13, 2012.

On August 2012, the Plaintiff submitted to the Gwangju Cultural Heritage Committee a vindication to the effect that “B has a tradition that can be designated as intangible cultural heritage, is the person that it has transmitted B, and all of the above civil petitions are false facts, and thus, B is designated as intangible cultural heritage and its holder is recognized as its holder.” (hereinafter “the vindication of this case”).

Accordingly, the Gwangju Cultural Heritage Committee, on September 19, 2012, designated an expert member as an investigator, investigated the facts related to the above civil petition, and decided to re-examine according to the results of the investigation. The results of the investigation that two of three expert members are inappropriate for the designation of this case, and one of them submitted a report to the effect that the designation of this case is reasonable. The plaintiff's intangible cultural heritage is based on the results of the investigation of this case on November 28, 2013 (hereinafter "the investigation of this case").