2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative established on July 24, 2009 by obtaining authorization for the establishment from the Bupyeong-gu Mayor to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”) under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) with the area of 16,142 square meters in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City as the business area. The Defendant was the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located within the area of the instant redevelopment project, and was ultimately a cash liquidation agent by failing to file an application for parcelling-out within the final period of application for parcelling-out.

B. On February 9, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained authorization to implement the instant redevelopment project on February 9, 2015; (b) obtained authorization to implement the relevant redevelopment project on December 30, 2015; and (c) publicly notified the authorization to implement the relevant redevelopment project on December 30, 2015; and (d) on December 30, 20

C. On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a ruling of expropriation on April 20, 2016, and received a ruling of expropriation on October 13, 2016 from the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal, which decided on October 13, 2016, on the commencement date of expropriation.

On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 638,967,70, which is equivalent to the total amount of the confinement compensation under the Incheon District Court Decision 2016Da2645 with the Defendant as the principal deposit. D.

The defendant reserved an objection and received the deposit money.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit constitutes an abuse of the right to file a lawsuit, which constitutes an abuse of the right to file a lawsuit, before a settlement agreement procedure or a ruling of acceptance is rendered.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the consultation on the amount of compensation was in fact impossible prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and the deposit procedure of the adjudication on expropriation and the compensation for expropriation is also possible prior to the closing date of argument