[1] Where an appraisal business entity separately evaluates land, the duty of care

[2] In a case where an appraisal business entity conducted an appraisal with a substantial difference from the reasonable price at the time of appraisal by negligence to cause damage to the client, whether the appraisal business entity is liable to compensate for damage

[3] The case holding that the appraisal business entity constitutes a case where the appraisal business entity conducted an appraisal significantly different appraisal from the reasonable price at the time

[4] In a case where an appraisal business operator claims compensation for damages on the ground of an unfair appraisal of collateral by an appraisal business operator, regardless of an unfair appraisal, in a case where the appraisal business operator claims that the loan would be suffered by a disqualified person, the burden of proof for such loan (=appraisal)

[5] The method of calculating the amount of damages in a case where an appraisal business entity conducted a loan exceeding the reasonable and reasonable appraisal value by making an unfair appraisal of collateral.

[6] The meaning of "the negligence in offsetting negligence" and whether the fact-finding and the determination of ratio are the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court (affirmative)

[1] Where an appraisal business entity conducts an appraisal as a result of an appraisal by determining the economic value of land upon a request from a third party and separately evaluates the land at the price, the objects of the appraisal shall be confirmed by a field survey, and the duty of care to conduct an appraisal in good faith by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the rate of land price fluctuations from the standard date of the public announcement to the pricing point based on the officially announced value of one or more reference land located in the same or a similar neighboring areas such as the land concerned, land category, surrounding environment, etc.; (b) the rate of increase in wholesale prices; (c) restrictions on or cancellation of the use, disposal, etc. of land; and (d) changes in the form, quality, and quality of land; and (e) other necessary adjustment methods

[2] When an appraisal business entity causes damage to a client by appraising an appraisal at a significantly different price from that at the time of appraisal by negligence, the appraisal business entity shall be liable to compensate for such damage.

[3] The case holding that where an appraisal business entity selected a comparative standard site that fails to meet the standard based only on the notification of acceptance of a building report and calculated the appraisal price without examining the details of the restriction on the use of the land, although the land subject to appraisal was permitted to convert from the reserved forest, it constitutes a case where the appraisal is conducted remarkably different from the reasonable price at the time

[4] In a case where a financial institution claims compensation for damages on the ground that it trusted an unfair appraisal of collateral conducted by an appraisal business entity against an appraisal business entity and gave a third party a loan on the basis of the appraisal price, the argument that the financial institution is suffering from loss by giving a loan to a third party regardless of the appraisal business entity's unfair appraisal of the loan regardless of whether the third party is an eligible person of the loan regardless of whether it is an appraisal business entity's unfair appraisal of the loan, and thus,

[5] Where an appraisal business entity conducted a loan exceeding the reasonable appraisal price by making an appraisal of collateral unfair appraisal, the portion of the loan exceeding the value of the collateral calculated based on the reasonable appraisal price shall be limited to the difference between the value of the collateral calculated based on the unfair appraisal price and the value of the collateral calculated based on the reasonable appraisal price.

[6] The comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act intends to take into account the obligee’s such care in calculating the amount of damages in accordance with the principle of equity in a case where the obligee fails to fulfill his/her duty required under the principle of equity. Thus, even if the damage was caused or expanded due to the obligee’s negligence, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the obligee. The existence and degree of the cause of comparative negligence in determining the scope of liability for damages caused by nonperformance shall be determined comprehensively by comparing both the conclusion and implementation of the contract at issue in individual cases, and the fault between the parties. The fact-finding or set-off ratio as to the cause of comparative negligence shall be deemed to be an exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is remarkably unreasonable in light of

[1] Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [2] Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [3] Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [4] Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act / [5] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act, Article 26 (

[5] Supreme Court Decision 97Da36293 delivered on September 22, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2539) / [6] Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1281), Supreme Court Decision 94Da61120 delivered on September 15, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3385), Supreme Court Decision 97Da43086 delivered on December 9, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 231), Supreme Court Decision 96Da1140 delivered on September 4, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2380), Supreme Court Decision 94Da53949 delivered on September 24, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2380).

Attorney Lee Sung-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Gyeonggi Bank;

Korea Appraisal Board (Attorney Jeong full-time, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na24282 delivered on October 13, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Where an appraisal business entity conducts an appraisal and assessment as a result of a determination of economic value of land, etc. at the request of a third party and conducts an appraisal and assessment of land at the price individually, the objects shall be confirmed by the on-site investigation, and if the appraisal and assessment business entity causes damage to the person entrusting the appraisal by conducting an appraisal and assessment based on the officially announced value of one or more reference land located in the same or similar areas such as the relevant land and usage, land category, surrounding environment, etc., the rate of land price fluctuations from the standard date of the public announcement to the pricing, restrictions on or cancellation of the use, disposal, etc. of wholesale prices, changes in the form and quality of land or land category pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes affecting land price fluctuations, and other necessary adjustment, such as analysis of regional factors and individual factors of the land subject to appraisal, it shall be liable to compensate for the damage.

According to the duly confirmed judgment of the court below, the defendant who is an appraisal business operator shall investigate the method of using the forest of this case and the type of restrictions on the use of the forest of this case, and, in the event that the forest of this case is diverted, the defendant shall have the duty of care to investigate the details of the restrictions on the use of the forest of this case and select a comparative standard in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, select the comparative standard in accordance with the characteristics and comparison of the land of this case, and then calculate the appraisal price by selecting the comparative standard which is not in conformity with the standard based on the notification of acceptance of building report without failing to perform the investigation of the characteristics that significantly affect the appraisal of the land of this case. Thus, the defendant shall be deemed to have conducted an appraisal by negligence

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. We find no ground for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where a financial institution provides a third party with a loan on the basis of its appraisal value and claims compensation for damages on the basis of the trust of an unfair appraisal of collateral held by an appraisal business entity against an appraisal business entity, the argument that a financial institution suffers from a loss by giving a loan to a third party regardless of the appraisal business entity's unfair appraisal of the loan regardless of whether the third party is an eligible person for the loan is a claim for exemption. Therefore, the person who claims the effect of exemption has the burden of proof.

In this case, the defendant asserts that there is no causal relationship with the defendant's unfair appraisal because the plaintiff was granted a loan to the non-party Han Metal Industries Co., Ltd., which is not a qualified credit holder, and thus, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the non-party company is not a qualified credit holder, and the defendant does not bear the burden of proving that the non-party company is a qualified credit holder.

In addition, according to the records, according to the Plaintiff’s credit regulations, small and medium enterprises are allowed to extend credit up to 100% of the appraised value of the secured real estate to the small and medium enterprises, and financial institutions should actively endeavor to alleviate the shortage of secured power by providing loans to small and medium enterprises at 100% of the appraised value of the secured real estate at the time of the payment guarantee. Since the above non-party company is a small and medium enterprise, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was responsible for the Plaintiff by treating the secured value of the instant land at 70% without recognizing the secured value as below 70% of the appraised value by the Defendant, and as such, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was aware that there was no secured value of the instant land in the records that there was no secured value of the instant land. Accordingly, there is no causation between the damage and the Defendant’s unfair appraisal.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's claim for exemption is just and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

If an appraisal business entity gives a loan in excess of the reasonable appraisal price by making an appraisal of collateral, the difference between the value of the collateral calculated based on the unfair appraisal price and the value of the collateral calculated based on the reasonable appraisal price shall be the amount of damages.

In addition, the comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act intends to take into account the obligee’s such care in calculating the amount of damages in accordance with the principle of equity when the obligee fails to fulfill his/her duty required under the principle of equity. Thus, even if the damages were incurred or expanded due to the principle of social norms or the principle of trust and good faith, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the obligee. The existence and degree of the reason for comparative negligence in determining the scope of liability for damages due to nonperformance shall be determined comprehensively by comparing both parties’ fault and conclusion of the contract at issue in individual cases. The fact-finding or set-off ratio as to the reason for comparative negligence shall be deemed to be an exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is manifestly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da25344, Nov. 24, 1998; 93Da52402, Feb. 10, 1995).

The reasoning of the judgment below is without merit, but it is just in light of the above legal principles that the court below acknowledged the plaintiff's damages caused by the defendant's improper appraisal as the whole amount of 380,00,000 won for the above 40 won for the above 30th appraisal. If the plaintiff extended a loan with real estate as security, it shall be limited to 70% of the appraised value for the above 40% of the total appraised value for the above 93,50,000 won for the above 70% of the appraised value for the above 128,485,00 won for the above 10th appraisal value for the above 30th appraisal, and the court below's determination that the above appraisal value should not be limited to the above 10th appraisal value for the above 30th appraisal value for the above 10th appraisal value for the above 10th appraisal value for the above 10th appraisal value for the above 10th appraisal value for the above 30th appraisal property.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)