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

The Plaintiff is a certified public appraiser belonging to Daejeon District Court Branch Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

On June 2015, the Plaintiff was entrusted by the head of the Category D branch office of the Association with the appraisal of 3,603 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the 3,603 square meters of land in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”).

On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a written appraisal (hereinafter “appraisal in accordance with the said written appraisal”) with the reference point as of May 27, 2015, stating “140,000,000 square meters of land” and “3,60,000 won of the appraised value (=3,603 square meters x 140,000 square meters x 140,000 square meters)” as of the reference point as of May 27, 2015, and the said appraisal process is as follows.

On May 3, 2016, the office of the Pyeongtaek-gu District Prosecutors' Office in the Sejong-gu Office of Public Prosecutors' Office of KRW 2.00,035 140,000 on January 31, 31, 2001, 200 1,376 m2,500 m2, 500 m2, 1,376 m2,501, in the city of Yan-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the unit price of land (won/m2) for individual factors and other factors for calculation of the modified area at the time of the officially announced land price of the standard comparative land for comparison standard land was reported to the effect that "I, who is an employee of H and B, obtained a large amount of loans from the J Union using a false appraisal report

On June 21, 2016, the Defendant requested the Korea Appraisal Board to conduct a feasibility study in order to investigate whether the appraisal by the appraisers, including the Plaintiff, who were involved in the instant case, was conducted lawfully and fairly in accordance with the relevant statutes.

The Korea Appraisal Board determined as follows: “The comparison of individual factors is inappropriate for the assessment of the instant case, but the comparison of individual factors is somewhat insufficient, and the process of examining the appropriateness by the correction of other factors and the process of examining the appropriateness by the transaction comparison method is inappropriate, so the assessment of the instant case exceeds the level of the reasonable price, and thus the deliberation by the Disciplinary Committee is necessary.”

The defendant, subject to a resolution by the Certified Public appraiser Disciplinary Committee, is as follows to the plaintiff on November 21, 2017.