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 instant real estate located within the Defendant’s housing redevelopment improvement project zone, and became a cash liquidation businessman due to the application for parcelling-out within the period for application for parcelling-out.

C. On May 15, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “instant adjudication”) with respect to the instant real estate on the date of expropriation on June 29, 2017.

After completing compensation to the Plaintiff according to the instant judgment, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 3, 2017 on the instant real estate based on expropriation as of June 29, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Summary of the assertion 1) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) which is a mandatory law

(2) According to Article 47 of the Act and Article 44(4) of the Articles of Incorporation of the Defendant, the Defendant shall liquidate to the Plaintiff who failed to apply for parcelling-out in cash within 150 days from the date following the deadline for application for parcelling-out. However, even if the Defendant failed to liquidate within 150 days from September 15, 2015, after the deadline for application for parcelling-out, and thus failed to acquire the right to expropriate the instant real estate, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant based on expropriation of the instant real estate without any legal basis. 2) As to the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the sales contract was concluded on September 15,

However, the defendant shall file an application for parcelling-out in accordance with Article 47 of the Urban Improvement Act.