1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Article 4. A. of important intangible cultural heritage that the Defendant against the Plaintiffs on February 14, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 23, 1978, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3644, Dec. 31, 1982), the Defendant recognized E (e.g., E (e., E), G (e., H), and I as its holder (hereinafter “holder”) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the same Act. On November 11, 1997, the Defendant recognized J as its holder upon the death of I, and recognized E as its honorary holder whose normal education became impossible due to health aggravation on April 20, 2005.

B. Meanwhile, between October 10, 1990 and November 30, 2001, the Defendant selected the Plaintiffs, who were I’s third parties, K, G’s third parties, and M as assistant instructors for successor training under the former Enforcement Decree of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

C. On January 28, 2011, the Defendant: (a) formulated an investigation plan for the designation of important intangible cultural heritage (recognition, etc.) in 2011; (b) conducted an investigation for the additional recognition of A holders as well; and (c) accordingly, conducted an investigation by submitting relevant data, such as curriculum, major transmission activities, details of transmission education activities, etc. from five assistant instructors for successor training, including the Plaintiffs; and (d) conducting an investigation by conducting personal skill assessment and interview.

(hereinafter “instant investigation”) D.

On January 27, 2012, based on the results of the instant investigation, the Defendant deliberated on the validity of A’s additional recognition by referring it to the Cultural Heritage Committee subcommittee (hereinafter “Cultural Heritage Committee”) and then decided on whether A’s additional recognition is feasible. The Cultural Heritage Committee decided that “A does not recognize the current frequency and does not recognize the additional holder as there is no risk of being transferred to two holders, as there is no concern for further transmission.”

E. Accordingly, on February 14, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that the additional recognition of A holder was rejected by the content of the above resolution.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are numbers A.