1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the Plaintiff and Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation added or stressed at the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The second appeal is merely a new administrative act that has an independent disposition conducted to recover the defect of the first appeal disposition, or it is merely an extension of the execution period stipulated in the second appeal disposition. Therefore, the first appeal disposition is lawful since the defect of the second appeal disposition does not succeed to the second appeal disposition, and the second appeal is not a defect that exists independently in the second appeal disposition, and it cannot be deemed that the said vicarious execution does not deviate from the court's decision to suspend execution against the first appeal disposition. Thus, the plaintiff's damages claim based on the premise that the vicarious execution of this case is unlawful. (2) If the owner of the building fails to comply with the order to remove the building by a certain period, and the second appeal order is not a new order to remove the building by the second appeal order, but a new order to remove the building by the second appeal order, and if the second appeal order is not a new order to remove the building by the second appeal order, it is not a new order to remove the building by the second appeal order, but a new order to remove the building by the second appeal order.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5144 delivered on October 28, 1994). The description of evidence No. 71 as well as each of the evidence and basic facts mentioned earlier.