1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff is the representative of the Preservation Council A (hereinafter “Preservation Council”) and submitted to the Defendant a written application stating that “A” comprised of D and E, which came from the Kim Sea Cdong 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 (hereinafter “the first spot investigation”) conducted a first spot investigation into A from Kimhae F in order to investigate the transmission value (i.e., history, artistic nature, academic nature, regional characteristics), transmission capacity (i.e., transfer volume, transmission activity), transmission environment (i., transfer base, and place of transmission) of A (hereinafter “the first spot investigation”).

On July 16, 2014, the subcommittee of intangible cultural heritage in Gyeong-nam-do decided to "stamp" in order to re-examine the H village site and to investigate whether a member of the preservation council is a local resident.

C. On March 5, 2015, three members of the Gyeong-do Cultural Heritage Committee were on the second spot investigation of A who actually conducted at the H community hall and the H community group.

(hereinafter referred to as “second on-site investigation,” and the subcommittee on intangible cultural heritage of Gyeongnam-do rendered a decision on “non-determination” on the ground that transmission capability and transmission base are insufficient as a result of deliberation based on the results of the first and second on-site investigation.

On October 29, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the application for designation of intangible cultural heritage and the recognition of the holder was rejected for the foregoing reasons.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). (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.

F. The relevant laws and regulations applicable to the instant case are as listed in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 through 7, 9 through 12, and 16 are included in each number, below.