(b) Negligence of "third party in good faith" under Article 20 of the Appraisal and Assessment Act and liability of the appraiser for damages.

(c) Whether the secured party was aware that a real estate appraisal report prepared for the purpose of sale was used for the purpose other than the purpose of appraisal where it was offered for the purpose of appraisal;

B. Since the appraisal business operator's liability for damages under Article 20 of the Appraisal and Assessment Act does not require the third party's negligence, even if the third party was negligent in not aware that the contents of appraisal are false facts or use other than the purpose of the request for appraisal, the appraisal business operator's liability for damages cannot be denied, regardless of the fact that there is a ground for offsetting negligence.

C. Where an appraisal report prepared for the original purpose of sale of real estate is offered to a secured party for the purpose of appraisal of collateral, it is difficult to readily conclude that the appraisal report was used for the purpose other than the original purpose of appraisal solely on the basis of the fact that the appraiser is a person other than the secured party and the purpose of appraisal is indicated as the market price, or that the above appraisal report has been submitted for the purpose of appraisal after the lapse of a considerable time (seven months).

1. According to Article 20 of the Appraisal and Appraisal Act, when a person engaged in an appraisal business makes an appraisal by intention or negligence at the market price at the time of the appraisal, or by making a false statement in the appraisal document, thereby causing damage to an appraiser or a bona fide third party, he shall be liable to compensate for such damage. Here, a bona fide third party shall be deemed not only to recognize the content of the appraisal is false, but also to refer to a third party who is not aware of the use other than the purpose of the appraisal request, if the appraisal document itself states that it cannot be used for the purpose other than the purpose of the appraisal request.

However, Article 20 of the above Act does not require the third party's negligence, so it is not possible to deny the liability of the appraiser, regardless of the fact that the third party was negligent in not aware of the above facts.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the appraisal report of this case prepared by the defendant was prepared by the request of the defendant for the appraisal at the market price in order to sell it to the third party, who is the husband of the non-party Kim Jong-ok, who is the owner of the forest of this case, to the third party, and the appraisal report of this case was made by the appraiser at the market price in order to sell it to the third party, the appraisal report of this case was made by the appraiser at the highest order and the back of the mark was made by the appraiser, and the above appraisal report was not used for the purpose of appraisal in order to provide the above real estate to the plaintiff of the non-party Kim Jong-ok as security, the above appraisal report of this case was submitted and used to the plaintiff for the purpose of appraisal different from the original one, and the appraisal report of this case was submitted and used for the purpose of appraisal in order to provide the above real estate to the plaintiff of the non-party Kim Jong-ok as security, the court below rejected the appraisal report of this case as alleged by the plaintiff.

However, even if the client stated in the appraisal report as the court below's approval was the third party, not the person providing the present appraisal, even though he was the husband of the Kim Mine, who is the title holder of the real estate subject to appraisal, and the purpose of appraisal was stipulated only as the market price, as the person providing the present security, in light of the fact that the client is the person other than the offerer and the purpose of appraisal was stated only as the market price, or that the appraisal was submitted after a considerable time has elapsed since the date when the above appraisal report was prepared, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff was aware that the appraisal report in this case was used for any purpose other than the original purpose of the appraisal request. If the plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that it was used for the purpose other than the above purpose of appraisal, it is not possible to regard the plaintiff as the third party in bad faith.

3. Ultimately, the lower court determined that the instant appraisal report was used for purposes other than the original appraisal purpose, and thus, cannot be a bona fide third party, and thus rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the ground that there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s damage and the preparation of the instant appraisal report and the Plaintiff’s damage. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the liability for damages under the Act on the Appraisal and Evaluation, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 1

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)