For the first one, it's a forced approximation, translating a more-than-seven-notes-per-octave language to a seven-notes-per-octave language. Something gets lost in translation, and in this case something that wasn't there gets added, namely the sharp/flat aspect. I don't know what this Youlan scale is, but most likely there were no sharps and flats where it came from. And there probably was no A, B, C, D, E, F, G either.
The sharp/flat note naming system has evolved for use in a culture where scales have seven notes per octave. That's why there are seven note names: A, B, C, D, E, F, G. The Western staff notation system corresponds to this. There are seven staff positions per octave. It's a language - it naturally lends itself to expressing certain things well, but some other things, not so well.
When you try to describe scales that have more than seven notes per octave, the seven-notes-per-octave note naming and staff notation systems are not ideal. But since they are so commonly used, that's what often gets used.
There are other kinds of notation systems and "languages", for example guitar tablature. There you could write 0,1,2,4,5,6,7,9,10 without having to ask the sharp or flat question. Do you speak tab?
For the second scale, it has seven notes per octave, and you can derive it from the C major scale by making two scale degrees flat. The logic is, each letter-name should occur exactly once. You cannot have C and C# in the same scale, that would be against the whole letter naming idea. Each of the seven scale degrees can be basically in a sharp, natural or flat position. By saying "C#" you declare that "my C slot is tuned sharp". The tuning switch cannot be both natural and sharp at the same time, in that sort of way of thinking.
BUT like already said, that logic only applies to systems that can be seen as somewhat compatible with the Western seven-notes-per-scale way of thinking.