The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In order to prevent the collapse by the direction of the enforcement officer in the reason of appeal, the sloping beamline of the instant building in the course of compulsory removal has been kept in close about 1m of the complainant’s land. In order to prevent the collapse by the direction of the enforcement officer in the reason of appeal, the Defendant only left only the shot beam with only the walls attached to the parts removed by the sandd position panel on the basis of the remaining steel beamline in order to prevent rainwater and wind in the instant building partially removed, and the part removed by the enforcement officer did not 1 cm.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the witness photographs of the remaining building after the removal of the building of this case submitted by the defendant at the court below, the defendant did not see the sand position panel immediately attached to the sloping beam of the building of this case, but added the combined board and each item to the shot beam of the first floor of the building of this case partially removed building of this case and added the outer steel beam of the first floor to the shot beam of this case (Evidence No. 106 pages of the evidence record) and added the sand position panel to this end (Evidence No. 106 pages of the evidence record). However, since the defendant did not refuse to remove the wooden shot beam of this case (Evidence No. 120 pages of the evidence record), the defendant's assertion that the defendant partially removed the building of this case does not seem to have been able to recognize the utility of the panel by the method of extending the shot beam of each of the defendant's building of this case.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.