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

3...

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 from the Busan City on the part of July 24, 2009. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate in the attached list within the rearrangement zone of the instant redevelopment project (hereinafter “instant real estate”), who did not file an application for a final sale within the period of application for a final sale.

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 of the instant real estate on April 20, 2016, and received a ruling of expropriation on October 13, 2016 from the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal, which decided on August 29, 2016, on the commencement date of expropriation.

On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 313,316,50,000 equivalent to the total amount of the confinement compensation with the deposited person as the defendant under Article 2649 of the Incheon District Court’s Branch Branch in 2016. The Defendant reserved an objection and received the said deposit.

[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 defendant's lawsuit of this case was filed prior to or simultaneously with the consultation procedure or the expropriation ruling procedure.