2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant was, during Ansan-si, a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association whose business area covers 185,269.3 square meters of Seoul Won-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and was issued authorization for the establishment of an association on May 29, 2012, authorization for the implementation of the project on June 2, 2015, and authorization for the implementation of the project on April 22, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff was the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached list in the Defendant’s housing redevelopment improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and became a cash liquidation agent by failing to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out.

C. The Defendant filed an application with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal for a ruling of expropriation of the instant real estate, which did not reach an agreement on compensation with the Plaintiff, and deposited compensation for losses upon receiving a ruling of expropriation. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) under the receipt of No. 96871 on August 1, 2017 by the Gyeyang-gu District Court for the reason of expropriation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the assertion 1) The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”) which is a mandatory law

(2) According to Article 47 of the Act and Article 44(4) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation, the Defendant shall liquidate the instant real estate to the Plaintiff who failed to apply for parcelling-out in cash within 150 days from the date following the completion date of the application for parcelling-out. Nevertheless, the Defendant completed the instant registration of transfer based on expropriation without any legal basis, even though the right to expropriate was extinguished due to cash settlement within 150 days from the day following the completion date of the application for parcelling-out in lots. Therefore, the instant registration of transfer must be cancelled as an invalid registration. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant on September 15, 2015, which is the following day after the Defendant’s termination date of the application for parcelling-out.