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 May 15, 2017, the above expropriation committee accepted each of the instant real property and made a ruling that the compensation for the loss was KRW 362,179,500 (i.e., compensation for land in KRW 307,737,00) (i.e., compensation for land in KRW 54,442,50), and the commencement date of expropriation was June 29, 2017 (hereinafter “instant expropriation ruling”). D.

On June 26, 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 June 29, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed on July 3, 2017 by the Suwon District Court, Anyang Branch of Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court, Anyang Branch of the Family Court, which received on July 3, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the argument is that the defendant's expropriation of each of the real estate in this case due to the expropriation ruling in this case, although the right of expropriation has ceased to exist due to the failure to liquidate the plaintiff within 150 days from the completion date of the application for parcelling-out in violation of Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act"), Article 44 (4) of the Association's Articles of association, and the conditions of project implementation authorization