무형문화재 전수교육조교인정해제처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. B was designated as a holder of the Gyeonggi-do important intangible cultural heritage CD (hereinafter “D”) on December 24, 1994, and the Plaintiff, upon the recommendation of B, was recognized as an assistant instructor for successor training on February 7, 2005.
B. After that, on March 17, 2017, B requested the Defendant to cancel the recognition of the assistant instructor for successor training on the ground that the Plaintiff did not engage in the assistant instructor for successor training.
- The instant disposition - the title of intangible cultural heritage of Gyeonggi-do: Article 21 of the Act on the Preservation and Promotion of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intangible Cultural Heritage Act”); Article 53-3 of the Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Gyeong-do: The date on which the plaintiff is cancelled and announced: November 21, 2017 (Notice E of Gyeonggi-do);
C. On November 20, 2017, based on the on-site investigation conducted by the cultural heritage members and expert members belonging to the Defendant, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the recognition of an assistant instructor for intangible cultural heritage training in Gyeonggi-do, following deliberation by the Gyeonggi-do Intangible Cultural Heritage Committee, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not conduct DNA successor training assistant activities for more than one year and used transmission subsidies for personal purposes:
(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1, No. 1, No. 4, and No. 11 and No. 12
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in light of the grounds for disposition and the relevant laws and regulations.
The plaintiff asserts that the above disposition is unlawful as follows.
First, Article 53-3(3)4 of the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, which the Defendant cited as the ground provision for the instant disposition, provides that “Where an instructor fails to conduct successor training under Article 53-5(2) for one year without any special reason, he/she shall be subject to the revocation of the recognition of assistant instructor for successor training.” Article 53-5(2) of the said Ordinance provides that an intangible cultural heritage owner