Plaintiff (Withdrawal)

Intervenor Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hanlul, Attorneys Long-si et al., Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 19, 2006

Cheongju District Court Decision 99Da1847 delivered on December 26, 2003

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant ordering the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor to pay in excess of the amount of KRW 1 billion and 5% per annum from November 9, 1994 to August 23, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and the part against the defendant's succeeding intervenor's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation, 50% of the costs incurred between the plaintiff, the succeeding intervenor and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the succeeding intervenor.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's successor 19,497,400,300 won with 5% interest per annum from November 9, 1994 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 13, 1994, the Co-Defendant 1 Co-Defendant 1 Co-Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-party 1 Co., Ltd”) requested the Defendant to appraise the land (hereinafter “land subject to appraisal”) other than the non-party 1 Co., Ltd., which is the non-party 1 corporation. The Defendant submitted to the non-party 1 Co., Ltd. a written appraisal statement on July 16, 1994, stating that the point of time for the price on July 14, 1994 at the 16th of the same month is the value of the land (number 1 omitted), which is KRW 509,3160,000 (land size 4.40,000 won per square meter). The entire value of the land subject to appraisal is assessed as KRW 51.92,190,

B. Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd provided land subject to appraisal as collateral and sought a loan from ○○ Bank △△ branch on its basis, but rejected the loan.

C. Thereafter, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. submitted the appraisal report prepared by the Defendant to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. for lease financing and siren financing from the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.. After reviewing the appraisal report, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. deemed the land subject to appraisal as sufficient collateral and determined to provide financing to Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. In accordance with this decision, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. entered into a lease agreement on September 29, 1994 with Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd., and Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd., purchased from Nonparty 7, such as shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shots Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and the representative director of Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., on September 30, 199 the remainder of the land subject to appraisal, including the land subject to appraisal, set the maximum debt amount at KRW 2.

D. On September 30, 1994, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. provided a financing of KRW 11,132,040,040,000 in total, KRW 18,52,040,000 on October 14, 1994, and provided a financing of KRW 2,504,810,000 on November 9, 1994 under the rental financing contract.

In addition, on September 30, 1994, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. received 927,602,00 won as lease contract deposit from Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. on September 30, 1994, and received KRW 1,331,739,700 in total, including the first lease fee of KRW 404,137,700 on October 14, 1994, and received KRW 227,710,000 on November 9, 1994, including the first rental contract deposit of KRW 70,392,000 (excluding value-added tax) and first rental fee of KRW 298,102,00 in total.

E. On November 15, 1994, the non-party 1 corporation did not pay the lease fee from the date of the second payment of the lease fee, and on November 23, 1994, the non-party 1 corporation paid the non-party 1 on November 23, 1994 (In relation to the person who was on the date of delay, the defendant asserted that the defendant was found to have been guilty of delinquency in paying the lease fee from October 15, 1994. However, in light of the overall purport of the written complaint, the above date on which the written complaint was written is obvious that it is a clerical error, and it is merely an indirect fact that is not a major fact

F. The plaintiff corporation terminated the above lease contract on October 8, 1997 and the above rental contract on December 10, 1994. The non-party 3 corporation, the senior mortgagee, applied for a voluntary auction on the land subject to appraisal. The land subject to appraisal is awarded KRW 2 billion on September 15, 1998 and the claim of the senior mortgagee was not properly appropriated.

G. On September 14, 1999, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd transferred all rights under the above lease agreement and the rental agreement to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and notified each of the above facts to the Defendant ( Accordingly, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. retired from this lawsuit with the consent of the Defendant).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to Gap's evidence 16-4, Gap's evidence 19-1 to 47, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion regarding the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor

On September 14, 1999, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed a claim against the Defendant for damages on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim damages due to the Defendant’s unfair appraisal from the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.. In response, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. filed the instant claim for damages on April 1999, and that the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. transferred all the rights including the instant claim for damages to the Intervenor on November 27, 1998, and thus, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd’s claim was an unentitled person’s claim, and that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages should be dismissed as it succeeded to the subject matter of lawsuit by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd

However, for the following reasons, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted. Whether the damage claim of the Plaintiff Company was included in the financial claim transfer contract between the Plaintiff Company and the succeeding intervenor on November 27, 1998 is determined according to the intent of the Plaintiff Company and the succeeding intervenor who is both parties to the above financial claim transfer contract. The Plaintiff Company and the succeeding intervenor did not include the damage claim of this case in the above financial claim transfer contract with the consent of the assent of all parties to the contract, and the Defendant’s assertion that the damage claim of this case was not included in the above financial claim transfer contract, was transferred to the succeeding intervenor on September 14, 1999, and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim of this case to the succeeding intervenor on September 14, 199, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the damage claim of this case had already

3. Determination as to the establishment of liability for damages

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

On July 14, 1994, at the time of appraisal price by intention or negligence, the Plaintiff’s successor intervenor assessed 6,253,135,200 won of the land subject to appraisal (the reasonable price of Nonparty 6’s appraiser Nonparty 6’s appraiser Nonparty 6’s appraiser Nonparty 6’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s appraiser’s 51,921,90,000 won of the existing claim amount set up on 16 lots, including the land subject to appraisal, and the Plaintiff Company, a bona fide third party, who trusted the appraisal, provided financial services by taking account of the collective mortgage amounting to KRW 20,875,00,000 of the total amount of the existing claim amount set up on 16 lots of land subject to appraisal, but provided the above land as collateral. After doing so, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was liable for damages to the Intervenor’s transferee’s damages under the former Land Price Disclosure and Land Price Evaluation Act (amended by Act.).

In regard to this, the defendant's appraisal was justified, and there was no causation between the defendant's appraisal and the damage of the plaintiff corporation, and the plaintiff corporation did not constitute a bona fide third person under Article 26 (1) of the former Act.

B. Method and content of the Defendant’s appraisal

According to the appraisal report (No. 2) written by the Defendant and submitted to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., the method and contents of the Defendant’s appraisal are as follows.

(1) The Defendant assessed the reasonable price of the land subject to appraisal according to the “Comparison Act of Standard Land Prices”.

(2) (Land Number 1 omitted) The land was adjacent to the skiing ground site operated by Nonparty 1 corporation as a ski ground, which constituted a part of the boundary points located near the southwest of a tunnel, which is located near the southwest and northwest of a tunnel, at the time of the Gyeong-si, Gyeonggi-do (administrative district as of July 14, 1994). The land was approved as a site for accommodation by being assigned to the existing skiing ground site through the approval of the alteration of the registered sports facility business plan as of July 4, 1994 for Nonparty 1 corporation. Nonparty 1 corporation started construction of the land as a site for accommodation facilities pursuant to the above approval of the alteration of the business plan as of July 14, 1994, which led to the construction of the above land as a site for accommodation facilities, and the construction of part of standing trees, which was growing on the ground, was conducted with the overall shape of the land at the time of permission to divert and use the above land at the time of the construction plan being registered.

(3) At the time of July 14, 1994, the Defendant, on the ground that the land (number 1 omitted), which was at the time of appraisal standard, was located in the site development project as a prospective site for accommodation facilities, deemed the said land as a miscellaneous land, and selected as a comparative standard land of 1,157 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-dong (number 2 omitted) in Geum-dong, Sejong-dong. The land (number 2 omitted) was located in the general commercial area within the urban planning zone, and was in the situation of land category and actual use on the public register.

(4) The Defendant: (a) calculated the reasonable price of land (number 1 omitted) by selecting land as a comparative standard site; (b) coordinating the time adjustment according to the land fluctuation rate and the overall price formation factors; and (c) calculated the reasonable price of land (number 1 omitted). The Defendant, compared to land (number 1 omitted), assessed land (number 1 omitted), the administrative conditions, such as the land size, shape, gradient and direction, ground and geological features, to the same extent as those subject to restrictions under public law are assessed, and assessed to the extent of 0.87, such as the size, shape, gradient and direction, ground and geological features, to the extent of 1.05; (c) the street conditions are superior to the degree of 1.15; (d) the environmental conditions are superior to the degree of 1.25; (e) the possibility and utility according to the future trends and other investment conditions; and (e) compared the reasonable price of land at a level of 1.38 square meters compared to the individual standard; and (e) calculated the reasonable price of land at a level of 3000/40 square meters.

C. Determination on negligence in selecting the appraisal method

The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that the Defendant was negligent in choosing the method of appraisal because the “Standard Land Price Comparison Act” selected by the Defendant did not have an adequate method to appraise the adequate land price, and thus, it first examines whether the Defendant was negligent in choosing the method of appraisal.

The former Act, which was enforced at the time of the Defendant’s appraisal and assessment, stipulates that when an appraisal and assessment business entity separately evaluates land at the request of another person, it shall be in accordance with the “Special Act on the Calculation of Standard Land Price” to maintain a balance between the price of the land subject to appraisal and the officially announced price of standard land by comparing various factors affecting the objective value of the land subject to appraisal based on the officially announced price of standard land deemed to have similar usefulness to the relevant land (Article 9

This seems to be to maintain objectivity of appraisal as much as the price assessment of land is more important in the society than other goods, and the said method is also followed in the assessment of collateral for land (Article 20(1)4 and 5 of the former Act). In addition, in the regulations on appraisal at the time of delegation under Article 22 of the same Act, the assessment of land is subject to the “Comparison Act of the officially announced land price of non-standard land” (Article 17 of the Rule).

On the other hand, the Act amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 28, 2000, "in principle, the comparison method of the officially announced land price of non-standard land", but in the case of the appraisal, such as the creation of a security right, auction, etc., the Act amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 28, 20

In the operation of the appraisal system, the controversy over whether it is desirable to simplify the appraisal techniques or to reduce the flexibility of the appraisal techniques for a long time, and the controversy over the desirable one has been continued for a long time.In the light of the appraisal technique, the method of appraisal and assessment can reduce the gap of the appraisal according to the subjective appraisal by an appraisal business entity, while it may interfere with the adequate appraisal depending on the case. The purpose of appraisal and assessment of land is to estimate and estimate the market price of land in a general and reasonable manner, and it is not to set the exclusive price of one's own satisfaction apart from the market price, not to set the exclusive price of one's own satisfaction apart from the market price. Considering the fact that the study on appraisal and assessment has repeated development to find the method of appraisal constantly against the past and more reasonable, it is doubtful that the method of appraisal and assessment of land has been limited by one of the methods, "the method of appraisal and assessment of land, etc." under the former Act, which has been applied to the appraisal and assessment system in accordance with the purpose of the public law.

Even if there is criticism about the rationality of the former Act that only allows the use of “the method of comparison of the officially announced land price” in all land appraisal, as long as the former Act at the time of the appraisal, which was regulating the appraisal system, had such regulations, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been negligent in adopting “the method of comparison of the officially announced land price of the non-standard land” in accordance with the statutory regulations.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's appraisal method was wrong is not legitimate.

D. Determination as to whether the defendant's appraisal was negligent

(1) Then, the Defendant’s selection as a comparative standard of land (number 2 omitted) and determination as to whether (number 1 omitted) land was erroneous in appraising (number 1 omitted) land at a level of 1.38 square meters compared to the comparative standard and as to whether (number 1 omitted) land was erroneous in appraising (number 440,000/m2) land (the reason for only mentioning land (number 1 omitted) among land subject to appraisal in this case is that (number 1 omitted) land is almost most of the land subject to appraisal, and the Defendant’s work was conducted centering on this land, and both of the instant pleadings were conducted centering on this land).

(2) The Defendant’s appraisal is the judgment of this court that there were the following errors.

① At the time of appraisal and assessment (number 1 omitted), the land was a forest, the special-purpose area of which is quasi-urban area, and was approved as the planned site for accommodation (conform building plan was being implemented), while the comparative standard is the same as before the general commercial area within the urban planning zone. In other words, (number 1 omitted) while the land was a forest that cannot be used for profit-making business other than establishing the container according to the plan promoted by Non-Party 1 Company at the time, it was a forest that could not be used for profit-making business, on the other hand, it was a land that can be provided for various profit-making businesses such as building of commercial buildings, building of commercial buildings, construction of main complex buildings, etc.

As alleged by the Defendant, appraisal of land is an operation that predicts or estimates the market price of land, and the most effective use principle and be applied to the formation of the market price of land. This principle is the principle that the market price of land having the characteristics of various uses is set at the highest price by competition, as the consumers who purchase the land acquire the land at the highest price when several uses compete with the same land. However, even if the maximum profit-raising use is the use of land, it is excluded from the use by a person with a special capacity, or the use of land which is not unreasonable or unreasonable, or unreasonable, and speculative use is not likely to be used for a beneficial business other than the container construction business in which the considerable amount of money is invested. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there is a similar utility value to the land (number 1 omitted) and the land of Pyeongtaek-dong (number 2 omitted) that can be used for various profit-making businesses, and thus, the Defendant’s decision that the land is not reasonable to have the strong choice of land by comparing it with usual (number 2 omitted).

The Defendant asserts that there was no other alternative because it could not find a standard for comparison of utility values similar to that of the land adjacent to Pyeongtaekdong (number 2 omitted) within the neighboring administrative district. This argument is a relative view of the standard for comparison and assessment of the price of the land subject to appraisal by selecting land similar to utility values as the standard land for appraisal and comparing individual factors. It is difficult to agree with this view in that the method for comparison and assessment is the method for appraisal and assessment that does not guarantee the validity of the conclusion unless the similarity between the land subject to appraisal and the standard land for appraisal are observed. In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant determined that the value of the land (number 1 omitted) is superior to that of the land in Pyeongtaekdong (number 2 omitted), there was no other alternative for determining utility values of the land, and thus, there was no other alternative for determining utility values of the land, and thus, there is no other difference between the above land and the above land as seen earlier, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no difference between the appraisal and assessment standard and the appraisal standard for appraisal cannot be seen as a more reasonable conclusion.

② In addition, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s determination on the reasonable appraisal of the land in the development plan. The Defendant’s selection of the standard land for comparison and individual factors assessment were based on the premise that the construction plan for the contact with Nonparty 1 Company on the land (number 1 omitted) was to be used as the contact site. Although the circumstances acknowledged as above, the aforementioned land was approved as the place for accommodation and some lumbering were carried out at the time of appraisal, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s appraisal and assessment based on the premise that the aforementioned land was successful, even though it was difficult to take into account the circumstances where the project was not carried out due to the need for construction of the land at the time of appraisal and assessment, and the permission for construction of the container was not completed at the beginning of the plan without the need for cost of construction, and even though the project was carried out in excess of the cost of financing, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s appraisal and assessment based on the premise that the project was not carried out by the adequate project plan at the time of its failure to raise funds.

In this regard, the defendant, including the defendant, asserts the limitation of the capacity of the appraisal business operator of Korea. However, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable since it is not prohibited under the law to give the opinion that it is impossible to give the appraisal request for security purpose, as stated in the detailed statement later, since it is not unreasonable to give the appraisal request exceeding one's own appraisal ability after unduly giving the unfair appraisal opinion.

③ The assessment of individual factors is difficult to obtain. (Land Number 1 omitted) while the land is located in a quasi-urban planning zone, the comparative standard is located in the urban planning zone, and (Land Number 1 omitted), while the land is in need of enormous costs and civil engineering works, etc. as forest land, the comparative standard is that the land involved in the cost, time, effort, danger, etc. until the land is actually usable is created as the site for the building that is not necessary to make a separate flatization work, and all of the costs, time, risks, etc. (number 1 omitted) is considered to exceed the land (number 1 omitted), and the accessibility to the public facilities and other commercial areas is also better than the land (number 1 omitted) by the Defendant’s comparative standard price compared to the land in the downtown. In addition, considering all the circumstances that may have an impact on the future usage diversity, ease of transactions, etc., as at the time of the Defendant’s appraisal and assessment, it is difficult to deem that the land at the price level is higher than the Defendant’s standard.

In addition, even though Non-Party 1 corporation promoted a construction plan for contact with the skiing ground in which it was in operation at the time, it did not have been used as a site for the skiing ground, and in case of auction separately from the site for the skiing ground (the possibility of the appraisal purpose of this case was to be considered as a matter of course since it was the purpose of the appraisal purpose of this case), the above land becomes a blind land not adjacent to the public service, but its street conditions are more than 1.05 times compared to the comparative standard, and the conditions of access are less than 1.1.1.

④ It is not very difficult to estimate the value of certain goods under the fully competitive market. However, it is not easy to identify the value of any goods under the fully competitive market. It is a work to estimate the market price (or fair price for fair trade, fair trade, and fair trade) in the case of goods which are subdivided into many sub-markets, and each of which is highly individual. It is difficult to estimate the market price of land with strong individual characteristics. Although it is difficult to estimate the market price of land, an academic methodology (or scientific methodology) has developed to estimate the market price of land has been reflecting the increase in social and economic needs. However, if an appraisal is not possible without exceeding the limit of universal feasibility on all goods, it is difficult to presume that there is a large number of Africa prices of goods in the world. However, if an appraisal is considered as a substitute, it is difficult to estimate that there is a large number of prices of goods to be traded at the most transparent market price on the market.

As can be seen, in the appraisal of land, if the appraisal exceeds the current value of the appraisal of real estate or exceeds the bounds of the capacity of the appraisal business entity, it will be a legitimate appraisal. In assessing the doctor’s duty of care, if there is a patient who is unable to treat with his/her own ability, the doctor bears the duty to take measures to transfer to a hospital equipped with the treatment capacity. If there is a patient who is unable to treat with his/her own ability, even if the diagnosis and treatment is performed in full with his/her own ability, it is determined that the diagnosis and treatment is legally erroneous. In the case of the appraisal business entity, if there is an opinion that it is not possible to make a legal judgment that there is negligence on the appraisal request exceeding his/her own ability, the appraisal and assessment cannot be made if there is an opinion that it is not possible to make a legal judgment that there is a fault in the appraisal and assessment. The appraisal opinion of real estate will be more harmful than that of the proper policy judgment and business judgment rather than that of providing information. Moreover, the appraisal and assessment will be able to provide information when compared with such opinion.

Although the health team, the first instance court appraiser, estimated and considered the cost of civil works required for changing the form and quality of the land, etc., considered various circumstances omitted in the appraisal, the defendant still has a lot of significance in the selection of a standard for comparison (it seems that any land presented in the process of the argument in this case is not an appropriate standard for comparison, and it is doubtful whether a proper standard for comparison can be found). At the auction procedure for the land subject to appraisal, the appraisal value was removed at various times in the auction procedure for the land subject to appraisal (it is too large even if the cancellation of the building permit and the change in the economic situation in our society are considered, even if the change in our society is considered), and ultimately, at the real auction (the auction market is one of the real estate market where free competition takes place), the most reasonable appraisal of the land subject to appraisal in this case may not be deemed to be a “unable appraisal” if considering the circumstances sold by the defendant which are less than 1/25 of the defendant’s appraised amount.

E. Determination as to whether there is a substantial difference between the Defendant’s appraised value and the reasonable price

Article 26(1) of the former Act provides that “When an appraisal business operator causes damage to a client or a bona fide third party by making an appraisal at the request of a third party with a substantial difference from the reasonable price at the time of the appraisal or by making a false statement in the appraisal document, an appraisal business operator shall be liable for such damage.” The reason for demanding a significant difference due to the requirements for establishing liability for damages is not the fact that it is reasonable when considering the difficulty of the appraisal business, it is not the fact that it is the reasonable price, but can be established with a substantial wide range. Therefore, considering the above purport of the Act, it is examined whether there is a significant difference between the Defendant’s appraisal value and the reasonable price.

It is evident that there is a significant difference between the appraisal impossibility and the Defendant’s appraisal value in view of the view of a legitimate appraisal. Moreover, given that there is a difference between 25 times or more based on the appraisal value formed in the real auction market, it is obvious that there is a significant difference even if the circumstances that were revoked (not having permission for construction at the time of the instant appraisal) or changes in economic situation are considered

Even if the Defendant’s mistake in the selection of comparative standard land was neglected, there is a significant difference between the reasonable price and the hydrogen billion won (number 1 omitted) by evaluating the land subject to appraisal which is clearly inferior compared to the comparative standard land (i.e., the 38% appraised value has increased) compared to the comparative standard land (i.e., the 38% appraised value has increased) ( even if the value of the land subject to appraisal is the same as that of the land subject to appraisal, the land (number 1 omitted) is remarkably different.

Therefore, it is recognized that there is a substantial difference between the appraised value and reasonable price of the defendant.

F. The causal relationship and whether the Plaintiff corporation is a bona fide third party

(1) The Defendant’s appraisal value of the land subject to appraisal remains at around KRW 26.2 billion, even if the sum of the maximum debt amount of senior mortgage is deducted from the Defendant’s 51.9 billion won. However, as long as the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. trusted this, the amount of 16 parcels of land (other than the four parcels of land subject to appraisal, the remaining land except the four parcels of land subject to appraisal seems to have little value of collateral) including the land, etc. is deemed to have a value of collateral for the sum of the purchase price of leased goods and the purchase price of rental goods, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. paid the said money after setting up a mortgage of KRW 2.5 billion in total, and the said money was incurred by the Defendant’s negligence.

Although the defendant asserted that the non-party 1 corporation falls under the category of business prohibited from facility leasing under the attached Table of Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Rules on Business Operation of Facilities Rental Companies, there is no causation. However, since the non-party 1 corporation is a specialized resort corporation approved by the competent authority under the Tourism Promotion Act, it cannot be viewed as a category of business prohibited from facility leasing.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the real estate subject to appraisal falls under the prohibition of collateral under Article 16 of the above Rule and Article 3-2 of the Regulations on Credit of Financial Institutions. However, since the time of acquisition of collateral had yet to be prior to the approval of the establishment of a condominium, it is difficult to view that the real estate subject to appraisal

In addition, the defendant argues that the losses of the plaintiff corporation and the defendant's mistake were not attributable to the plaintiff corporation's trust in the defendant's appraisal, but because the defendant decided the credit of this case due to the plaintiff corporation's various mistakes, and therefore there is no causation between the losses of the plaintiff corporation and the defendant's mistake. Thus, as seen later, the defendant's argument that the plaintiff corporation was not responsible for providing financial services to the non-party 1 corporation, but it is also because the plaintiff corporation believed that there was not only the error in its responsibility but also the defendant's trust and sufficient security of the defendant's wrong appraisal, and that the plaintiff corporation was not responsible for offering financial services to the non-party 1 corporation. The defendant's responsibility for the plaintiff corporation is considerably large, but it is not up to the extent that

(2) The phrase “a bona fide third party” in Article 26(1) of the former Act refers to a third party who does not recognize that the appraisal content is significantly different from the reasonable price at the time of appraisal, and in cases where it is stipulated that the appraisal report itself cannot be used for any purpose other than for the purpose of the appraisal request or that it cannot be used by any other person than the client, as well as the appraisal content is not perceived that it is significantly different from the reasonable price at the time of appraisal (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da28661, Sept.

It is recognized that the Defendant’s written appraisal submitted by Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. was the “○○ Bank △△△ branch”, and the Defendant’s written appraisal statement stating that “I will not use this written appraisal for any purpose other than the purpose of the appraisal request or make it available to others (other than the client or the confirming bank at the time of the appraisal of collateral, and will not take responsibility for the result.”

However, the defendant's appraisal and assessment purpose was the object of collateral, and the client was the non-party 1 corporation. On September 30, 1994 when the plaintiff corporation entered into the lease contract, requested the defendant to change the title of the claim agency of the appraisal and assessment document, the defendant, without any particular review, changed the name of the claim agency to the plaintiff corporation on October 1, 1994, and most of the lease contracts were paid and the recovery price was paid. In light of the fact that the plaintiff corporation is a bona fide third person.

4. Determination on the scope of damages

A. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted that the total amount of the financial amount that the Plaintiff Company provided to Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. with trust in the Defendant’s appraisal and did not recover, but considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion cannot be accepted.

B. Even if the best appraisal has been made, the appraisal value of land is merely a prediction or presumption of the market price (or the reasonable price) of the land subject to appraisal at the time of the appraisal. An appraisal of land is only one of the data and information aiding business judgment, and it cannot be a guarantee that the land can be sold at the actual market price above the appraised value.

The Plaintiff Company is a financial institution that engages in lease financing business and has expertise in evaluating and managing risks arising from its credit business. Most financial institutions know that the appraisal opinion should be taken into account as data for appraisal of risks arising from its credit financing business, taking into account general uncertainty following the appraisal work of real estate appraisal and assessment, and that only a certain ratio of the appraised value should not depend entirely on the appraisal and assessment. Even though the Plaintiff Company did not have any standard on the credit limit (see, e.g., presumption of the reasons, that the lease itself is a security against the financial risks. However, the risk arising from the finance is the same as that of the general credit business of a bank, etc., and that the risk arising from the loan is still the same as that of the Plaintiff Company’s 20 billion won, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s appraisal and assessment plan was established based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s appraisal and assessment of forest condition is still unreasonable and that the Plaintiff Company could not easily recognize any problem in the Plaintiff Company’s appraisal and assessment as an appraisal and assessment report even if it did not have been sufficiently compared with the Plaintiff Company 1’s appraisal and appraisal and assessment report.

In addition, the plaintiff corporation did not expect the situation that the non-party 1 corporation did not pay rent in arrears after providing a large amount of financing, and the non-party 1 corporation did not expect to do so.

C. As of December 31, 1993, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. dealt with lease and sirens mainly with credit standing rather than collateral [Article 16 of the former Equipment Rental Business Act (amended by Act No. 5211, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter the same)]. As of December 31, 1993, the total assets of Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. were approximately KRW 134 billion, while the total assets were KRW 130 billion, and the total assets were almost KRW 130 billion, and the debt ratio was almost KRW 3345.43%, and the financial structure was extremely weak, and the annual sales were approximately KRW 6.2 billion, and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. was aware of the loan and loan charges of KRW 5.6 billion per year to Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. (the net profit of KRW 190,000,000,000,000).

In addition, while the plaintiff's employees knew that they were registered as the yellow Trade Office, they entered the non-party 8 corporation as joint and several sureties, and the non-party 9 and the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation entered the non-party 10 as joint and several sureties without any investigation of property.

The amount of approximately 69% out of the price for the purchase of the foregoing lease goods and sirens paid to Nonparty 7, who was the supplier of the leased goods, was used by Nonparty 8 Co., Ltd., and approximately 29% was used by Nonparty 7, who was the supplier of the leased goods, was approximately 6% of the amount of KRW 1.2 billion. Moreover, the lease goods and sirens were not newly acquired by the lease agreement and the rental agreement, but were already installed in the skiing ground operated by Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. at the time of the conclusion of the said lease agreement and the rental agreement. At the time of the conclusion of the said lease agreement and the rental agreement, a large number of lease goods and sirens were already provided to Nonparty 4 Co., Ltd., or only part of the lease goods or sirens owned by other lease companies such as Nonparty 5 Co., Ltd. were inspected and confirmed after the establishment of the lease agreement and the said rental agreement.

In addition, the employee of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd is subject to criminal punishment with money in return for the provision of finance to Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence, evidence No. 6-1 to No. 64, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. In light of the above circumstances, although the responsibility of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. is large in size, it is not enough to exempt the Defendant from liability (the Defendant is the maximum appraisal corporation in Korea, and the Defendant cannot take into account the trust held by the Defendant in determining the scope of the Defendant’s responsibility). This is considered only when determining the Defendant’s liability.

E. Taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the pleadings of this case, such as the change of circumstances after the pricing point is inevitable even if an adequate appraisal was made, and the difference between the appraisal price and the real auction price, etc., that the amount of unrefied amount arising from the failure of the Plaintiff Company should be excluded from the amount of damages. The details and process leading up to the Plaintiff Company’s handling of lease financing and siren financing, the amount of appraisal fees received by the Defendant, and the size of expected profit that the Plaintiff Company could obtain from lease financing and siren financing, and the degree of efforts by the Plaintiff Company for the preservation of the claim after delay in the payment of rent and rental fees, the amount of the Defendant’s liability for damages is reasonable to determine the amount of KRW 1 billion (in this case, it is difficult to determine the reasonable amount of the land subject to appraisal in a reasonable causal relation, i.e., the calculation of damages exceeding the reasonable amount, taking into account all the circumstances, and recognizing the comparative negligence of the Plaintiff Company’s fault as above).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1 billion and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 9, 1994, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute on the existence and scope of the obligation to perform from the date of the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor’s claim to November 9, 1994, until August 23, 2006, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's successor's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, part of the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance ordering payment exceeding the above recognition amount is revoked, the plaintiff's claim as to the revoked part is dismissed, and the remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)

(1) Article 9 (Criteria for Assessment of Individual Land) (1) Where an appraisal business entity separately evaluates land at the request of another person, it shall be based on the officially announced value of reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the relevant land.

2) Article 9 (Appraisal and Assessment of Land) (1) Where an appraisal business entity performs an individual appraisal and assessment of land at the request of another person, it shall be based on the officially announced value of standard land deemed to have similar usefulness to the relevant land: Provided, That where an appraisal and assessment is conducted as prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as creation and auction of a security right, it may be conducted in consideration of rent