1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3. Costs of appeal; and

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 1996, the Plaintiff was recognized as a holder B of intangible cultural heritage designated by the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Properties provides that the designated intangible cultural heritage holders shall provide the technical skills and arts instructors with the instruction of their arts, and that they shall bear expenses necessary for the instruction of arts within budgetary limits.

Accordingly, the defendant paid monthly transmission activity subsidy to the intangible cultural heritage holders, and paid KRW 1,200,000 per month in 2010.

C. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff subsidies for transmission activities from January 2014 to October of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff subsidies for transmission activities for the period from January 2014 to October 2014, 2014, and the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the hospital during the aforementioned period. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 in total, including the above subsidies of KRW 12,00,000 and the hospitalization allowances of KRW 3,00,000 in total, five times, and damages for delay.

(The plaintiff does not present a specific basis for calculation). (b)

The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not disclose the function from 2012 to 2013 without any special reason, did not conduct the successor training, and the defendant suspended the payment of the transmission activity subsidy on November 201, 2014, but resumed the payment of the subsidy on the ground that the transmission activity environment was only maintained as a result of on-site verification, and that the suspension of the payment of the subsidy was justified.

C. The Defendant’s payment of the transmission activity subsidy to the owner of intangible cultural heritage is paid as expenses incurred in providing education to transfer the Plaintiff’s skills to others. The Plaintiff’s payment of the transmission activity subsidy to the owner of intangible cultural heritage is from January 2014 solely based on the evidence Nos. 1 to 4.