1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

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 Gu Won-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and was subject to the authorization for the establishment of an association on May 29, 2012, the authorization for the implementation of the project on June 2, 2015, and the authorization for the implementation of the project on April 22, 2016.

B. The Plaintiffs were the owners of the instant real estate located within the Defendant’s housing redevelopment improvement project zone, and they became cash liquidation agents due to the lack of application for parcelling-out within the period for parcelling-out.

C. On June 12, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Gyeonggi-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee, which did not consult with the Plaintiffs, and the said Committee rendered a ruling that the date of expropriation will be July 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant adjudication”). D.

According to the instant judgment, the Defendant deposited KRW 53,483,340 to each of the Plaintiffs and completed compensation, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 28, 2017 for the instant real estate due to expropriation on July 27, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, and 12 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims

A. Summary of the assertion 1) The Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) which is a mandatory law

(2) According to Article 47 of the Act and Article 44(4) of the Articles of Incorporation of the Defendant, the Defendant shall liquidate to the Plaintiff who failed to apply for parcelling-out in cash within 150 days from the following day after the deadline for application for parcelling-out. However, even if the Defendant failed to liquidate within 150 days from September 15, 2015, after the deadline for application for parcelling-out, and thus failed to acquire the right to expropriate the instant real estate, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant based on expropriation of the instant real estate without any legal basis. 2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant for the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the instant real estate, which

However, there is a problem.