1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

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 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 with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Tribunal for the adjudication of expropriation of each of the instant real estate and deposited compensation for losses upon receiving the adjudication of expropriation. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant registrations”) on July 28, 2017 by the Gyeyang-gu District Court, Ansan-gu, Seoul District Court on the ground of expropriation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the assertion 1) The former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas”) which is a mandatory law

(2) According to Article 47 of the Act and Article 44(4) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation, the Defendant shall settle in cash to the Plaintiff who failed to apply for parcelling-out within 150 days from the following day after the completion date of the application for parcelling-out. Nevertheless, the Defendant completed each of the instant registrations on the instant real estate subject to expropriation without legal grounds, even though the right to expropriate had ceased to be liquidated within 150 days from September 14, 2015, by failing to liquidate within 150 days after the completion date of the application for parcelling-out. Accordingly, each of the instant registrations must be cancelled as invalid registration. (2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract on September 15, 2015, which was the day following the completion date of the application for