Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a cooperative with the purpose of housing reconstruction improvement project for the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government 27,562 square meters (hereinafter “instant project site”), and the Defendant is a company that aims at construction works, etc.

B. On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the construction of a Amateur reconstruction project with the Defendant for the instant project site.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). C.

Of the summary of the construction contract for A apartment reconstruction project and the Magrest and the construction cost included in the construction cost, the “specialized area for the external and landscape architecture” as indicated “high-class design fences” (34 pages) and “high-class design fences” as the specialized area for the external and landscape design.

(54 pages) d.

According to the instant construction contract, the Defendant newly constructed an apartment complex in the instant apartment site in accordance with the instant construction contract. The apartment complex was constructed in the outer boundary of the said apartment complex, and the fence was not installed. After the completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff installed fences at the outer boundary of the instant project site by bringing KRW 207,130,000 at the expense of the Plaintiff Union following a resolution of the general assembly on November 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Defendant was obligated to perform fences installation works on the outer side of an apartment complex newly constructed under the instant construction contract, the Defendant received a completion inspection without implementing fences construction works on the ground that the Seocho-gu Office, the authorizing authority, in the process of consultation on project implementation, presented the opinion that it is desirable to block the installation of fences and, in unavoidable circumstances, create a fences in the outer part of the apartment complex.

Although the defendant received construction expenses including the whole expenses of fences from the plaintiff, he/she does not perform the fences installation works without any legal grounds.