A. On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff is the representative of the Preservation Council (hereinafter “Preservation Council”) and submitted to the Defendant a written application stating that “A” comprised of D and E, which was transferred from Kim Sea Cdong to the Defendant through the Kim Sea market, was designated as intangible cultural heritage and that the Plaintiff and the Preservation Council were designated as a holder and group holder.

B. On June 13, 2014, four members of the Gyeongnam-do Cultural Heritage Committee conducted the first on-site investigation from Kimhae F in order to investigate A's transmission value (i.e., history, artistic value, academic nature, regional characteristics), transmission capacity (i.e., transfer volume, transmission activity), transmission environment (i., transfer base, transmission will).

On July 16, 2014, the subcommittee on intangible cultural heritage of Gyeongnam-do rendered a decision of "collection" in order to review the results of deliberation based on the results of the first on-site investigation conducted on July 16, 2014, and to verify whether the preservation council members

C. On March 5, 2015, three members of the Gyeong-do Cultural Heritage Council conducted a second on-site investigation at the HH community center in Kimhae-si in order to investigate whether G is a local resident and is engaged in continuous transmission activities.

On September 8, 2015, the subcommittee of the intangible cultural heritage of Gyeongnam-do rendered a decision on the "competence" on the grounds that the results of deliberation based on the results of the above on-site investigation conducted on September 8, 2015 are insufficient to be the basis of transmission (traditional Village collapse), the number of members of the preservation council is insufficient, and the members are residents of other regions

On October 29, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the application for designation of intangible cultural heritage and the recognition of the holder (organization) was rejected on the ground as above.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on January 25, 2016, but was dismissed on May 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9 through 12, and 16 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. This.