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 the association on May 29, 2012, the authorization for the implementation of the project on June 2, 2015, and the authorization for the management and disposal plan on April 22, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff was the owner of each of the instant real estate located within the Defendant’s housing redevelopment improvement project zone, and became a cash liquidation businessman by failing to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out

C. The defendant filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do, where the compensation agreement with the plaintiff is not reached.

On June 12, 2017, the above expropriation committee accepted each of the instant real property and made a ruling that the compensation for the loss was KRW 296,288,850 (=253,90,800 building compensation KRW 42,388,050) and the commencement date of expropriation was July 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”). D.

On July 25, 2017, the Defendant deposited KRW 362,179,50 as compensation for losses in accordance with the Suwon District Court's Ansan-gu 2017 Geumyang-gu, 2017, by making the Plaintiff as the principal deposit in accordance with the instant ruling of acceptance.

E. After that, on the ground of expropriation on July 27, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed on July 28, 2017 by the Suwon District Court, Anyang Branch of Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court (No. 94742) received on July 28, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The main purport of the assertion is to expropriate each of the real estate of this case, which is a mandatory law, in violation of Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”), Article 44(4) of the Association’s Articles of association, and Article 44(1) of the conditions for authorization for project implementation of the Ansan market, and although the right to expropriate has ceased to exist due to the failure to liquidate to the