The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after the appeal.

1. If an administrative agency’s refusal against a citizen’s request falls under an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, the right to request an administrative agency’s action under law or sound reasoning must be required to its citizen; and if an administrative agency does not accept a citizen’s request without such right to request a citizen’s request, the rejection does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on April 15, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11626, Apr. 15, 2005). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Defendant: (a) formulated an investigation plan to designate important intangible cultural heritage (recognition, etc.) on January 28, 201; and (b) made an investigation by means of personal skill assessment and interview (hereinafter “instant investigation”); (c) an intangible cultural heritage subcommittee upon receipt of a request from the Defendant to examine the validity of the A holder addition based on the results of the instant investigation; and (d) the Defendant rendered an additional resolution to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2011, stating that “A does not recognize that there is no possibility that two holders of intangible cultural heritage currently are successors, and thus, there is no concern to acknowledge the right to transfer; and (d) the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the additional resolution.”

3. However, Article 24 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12352, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same) can designate an important intangible cultural heritage as an important cultural heritage (Paragraph 1) and an important intangible cultural heritage.