A. In order to implement a housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”), the Plaintiff is a cooperative established on July 24, 2009 by obtaining authorization for the establishment of a housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”). The Defendant is the owner of the real estate in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located within the project area of the instant redevelopment project, and is the owner of the real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”), among the first floor of the instant real estate.

B. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff received authorization for the implementation of the instant rearrangement project from the vice-Mayor on February 9, 2015, and then received the authorization for the implementation of the relevant rearrangement project on December 30, 2015, and publicly announced the management and disposal plan in the public bulletin on the same day.

C. On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a ruling of expropriation on the instant real estate on April 20, 2016, and received a ruling of expropriation on October 31, 2016 from the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal on December 15, 2016, on which the commencement date of expropriation was decided on December 15, 2016.

On September 19, 2016, the Defendant received 479,598,650 won (land compensation KRW 403,153,500, business compensation KRW 76,4455,150) equivalent to the total amount of compensation for expropriation from the Plaintiff, without reservation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the defense prior to the merits, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit constitutes an abuse of the right of lawsuit, and thus, constitutes unlawful since the instant lawsuit was filed before the Plaintiff had a duty to liquidate the instant real estate in cash pursuant to Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

However, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case prior to or simultaneously with the consultation procedure or the expropriation ruling procedure.