[1] Whether the only difference between the highest and the lowest appraised value is the standard for determining the gap between 1.3 times the highest and the lowest appraised value in recognition of the "low difference" under Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (negative)

[2] Whether the reason attributable to an appraisal business entity for an unfair appraisal should be considered in order to recognize a 's poor difference' in [1] Paragraph (1) (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that where an appraisal business entity conducted an appraisal by a arbitrary and arbitrary method of disregarding the standards of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. and the Appraisal Regulations, the appraisal business entity's "low difference" under Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. and the Appraisal Regulations is recognized as

[1] Article 5 (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 7 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 5-4 (1) and Article 5-4 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Compensation and Compensation for Losses of Public Works, etc. Act, if the highest appraised value exceeds 1.3 times the lowest appraised value among the appraised values, the Minister of Construction and Transportation or the project operator may request another two appraisal business operators to re-examine the appraisal of the objects. The difference between the appraised value and the adequate appraised value under Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act cannot be the only standard for determination.

[2] Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act provides that the appraisal business operator shall be liable for damages to an appraisal requester or a bona fide third party when the appraisal value is "a reasonable price and a reasonable price" is combined with the case of an unfair appraisal by intention and negligence. If the appraisal business operator recognizes the liability for damages of an appraisal business operator on the ground that the appraisal business operator's liability for damages is not limited to an unfair appraisal by intention and an unfair appraisal by negligence, and that there is a difference above a certain rate between the appraisal value and the reasonable price, it may be contrary to the concept of justice. Accordingly, whether there is "a poor difference between the appraisal value and the reasonable price" should be determined flexibly according to social norms, taking into account what is the cause attributable to the appraisal business operator caused the unfair appraisal.

[3] The case holding that where an appraisal business entity conducted an appraisal by arbitrary and arbitrary means disregarding the standards of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. and the Appraisal Regulations, the appraisal business entity's "low difference" under Article 26 (1) of the same Act is recognized as the basis of unfair appraisal by intention or negligence of the appraisal business entity.

[1] Articles 5(2) and 26(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 7(4) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 5-4(1) and (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [2] Article 26(1) of

The Rural Development Corporation (Attorney Dog-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Im-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na49983 delivered on November 6, 1996

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence produced therefrom.

Under the Plaintiff’s approval, the business branch office of the Rural Development Corporation under the Plaintiff’s affiliated company (hereinafter referred to as the “sports branch office”) decided to purchase 2,053 square meters out of 571 square meters prior to the division (2,052 square meters prior to the division) of 571 square meters prior to the division (571 square meters prior to the division) of 571-8 square meters prior to the division (571-8, 564 square meters prior to the division), 2,053 square meters among 571-9, 571-9, 572 square meters prior to the division (2,052 square meters prior to the division) from the non-party Kim Hong-dong, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, 571, and 132 square meters among 572-2 and 512-2 square meters prior to the division (hereinafter referred to as the “land appraisal business office”), and to purchase 152 square meters of the same land as the land.

On the 26th day of the same month, the Defendant responded to the appraisal result that the unit price of the instant land was KRW 302,500 per square meter (gold KRW 1,00,000 per square meter) and the total assessment value was KRW 1,234,805,00 per square meter.

The Gyeonggi branch office, upon receipt of a reply from the Defendant to the said appraisal result, filed an application for land transaction permission with the Defendant’s land transaction permission to enter into a sales contract on the instant land in Gyeonggi-do, a competent administrative agency, jointly with Kim Hong-chan scheduled to trade the land in order to obtain land transaction permission for the instant land located within the land transaction regulation area, with the Defendant’s appraisal price set as the purchase price.

The athletic branch concluded a sales contract to purchase the instant land from Kim Hong on the same day with the purchase price of KRW 1,234,800,000 (limited to the amount that is almost the same as the Defendant’s appraisal price of KRW 1,234,805,00, which is almost the same as the Defendant’s appraisal price), and paid the purchase price in full to Kim Hong; on the other hand, Kim Hong agreed to provide the access road from the instant land without compensation, apart from the instant land.

However, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an audit on the plaintiff and judged that the appraisal price on the land of this case is inappropriate. On March 14, 1991, the Korea Appraisal Board independently requested the Korea Appraisal Board to appraise the price of the land of this case at the price point of December 26, 1990. On March 23, 191, the Korea Appraisal Board respondeded to the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection of Korea on March 23, 1991 that the price at the time of the land of this case was equivalent to KRW 795,370,000, the price at the time of the land of this case was equivalent to KRW 795,370,00.

Meanwhile, as a result of the appraisal of the instant land at the pricing point on December 24, 1990, the appraiser Lee Jae-in in the first instance court assessed the total price of the instant land as KRW 961,323,000.

B. The lower court further determined as follows.

The defendant selected the reference land which is deemed to have the usefulness similar to the land of this case in accordance with the method stipulated in Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and compared and evaluate the factors affecting the objective value of the land such as the location, topography, and environment of the reference land and the land of this case on the basis of the officially announced value of such reference land. It is reasonable to view that the defendant was negligent in failing to properly perform his duty of loyalty in assessing the land of this case in accordance with Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, in light of the location, shape and surrounding transaction rate of the land of this case without any specific reason.

In order to ask the defendant for damages, there must be a significant difference between the defendant's appraisal price for the land of this case and the objective appraisal price for the land of this case, and thereby, it should be recognized that the damage equivalent to the difference occurred to the plaintiff.

In this case, the result of appraisal by the Korea Appraisal Board under Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and the result of appraisal by the first instance court. Among them, the result of appraisal by the Korea Appraisal Board is the result of appraisal by the Korea Appraisal Board and the result of appraisal by the Korea Appraisal Board. Among them, it is unclear how to compare and appraise the various factors of the reference land and the reference land in this case although the appraisal by the Korea Appraisal Board, which have a similar utility value to the land in this case, reached the price assessment by selecting the reference land that is similar to the land in this case, is unclear. On the other hand, the result of appraisal by the first instance court is unclear as to how to compare and appraise the main factors of the reference land in this case, which are the location, land category, form, surrounding environment, utilization conditions, and other factors of the reference land in this case by each parcel of the land in this case. Since the result of appraisal by the first instance court

Therefore, it is reasonable to regard the pertinent land as KRW 961,323,00 based on the result of the first instance court’s appraisal. However, in light of the fact that each provision such as Article 5(2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 7(4) and (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 5-4(1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Use of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, permits the highest appraisal value and the lowest appraisal value are 1.3 times as to the land in this case, the Defendant’s appraisal value of KRW 1,234,80,00, which are the reasonable price for the instant land, would be 961,323,00,000 as the result of the first instance court’s appraisal, which would have been the result of the first instance court’s appraisal that the first instance court’s appraisal value would have been significantly different from the instant land’s new appraisal value.

The plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that there is a significant difference between the appraisal price and the appropriate price due to the defendant's unfaithful appraisal is without merit.

2. Judgment of party members

A. As to the first ground for appeal

According to Article 9 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, where an appraisal business entity performs individual appraisal and assessment at the request of a third party, it shall be based on the officially announced value of the reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the relevant land, and the appraisal business entity shall make an appraisal and assessment by comparing one or more reference land and two or more reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the land subject to appraisal, and the factors affecting the objective value of the land, such as the location, topography

However, according to the records, it is difficult to view the land appraisal report (No. 6) prepared by the Korea Appraisal Board as the result of the appraisal by receiving a fixed request for appraisal, and even if so, it cannot be viewed as the result of a lawful appraisal under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, since there is no indication as to how to compare individual factors between the land and the reference land selected by the Korea Appraisal Board, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the result of a legitimate appraisal under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.

Then, considering the appraisal result of this case’s appraisal of 1 piece of land, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, and 15 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 5 square meters, and 100 square meters, 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 5 square meters, and 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 5 square meters, and 100 square meters, 70 square meters, and 70 square meters, 70 square meters, 5 square meters, and 100 square meters, 70 square meters, and 50 square meters, 70 square meters, and 572 square meters, which are different from the above appraisal method. However, according to the appraisal method, 572 square meters, 70 square meters, 201 square meters, of the above land.

The court below's adoption of the appraisal result without clarifying the above questions and determination of the reasonable price for response is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on appraisal under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and there is a ground of appeal No. 1 which points out this issue.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 7 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (Presidential Decree No. 15093, Jun. 29, 196) cited by the court below shall be based on the arithmetic mean of the appraised values submitted by the appraisal business operator under the provisions of Article 5 (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act. Where the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems that the survey and appraisal of reference land conducted by the appraisal business operator is conducted in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, he may again request the relevant appraisal business operator to conduct an appraisal and appraisal; where there are special reasons for not recognizing that the survey and appraisal are appropriate, or where the highest of the appraised values exceeds 1.3 times the minimum appraised values, he may again request another appraisal business operator to conduct an appraisal and assessment of reference land; where the reasonable appraisal values of reference land are again determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the reasonable appraisal values of reference land shall be again determined by the arithmetic mean of the appraised values of reference land which are the relevant appraisal business operator.

Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act ("Public Notice of Values and Appraisal Act") provides that the appraisal business operator shall be liable for damages to an appraisal requester or a third party acting in good faith, if the appraisal business operator recognizes the liability for damages of an appraisal business operator on a uniform basis of the difference between the appraisal value and the reasonable price, regardless of the case of an unfair appraisal by intention and the case of an unfair appraisal by negligence, and the case of an appraisal by negligence. Ultimately, the determination of whether there is a "low difference between the appraisal value and the reasonable price" should be made flexibly according to the concept of justice in consideration of what is the reason attributable to the appraisal business operator which caused the unfair appraisal.

In this case, according to the court below's decision, the defendant appraised the land of this case by a arbitrary and arbitrary method disregarding the standards of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. and the Appraisal of Lands, etc. and the Appraisal of Appraisal and Appraisal Regulations, which can be seen as an unfair appraisal by intention or by gross negligence similar thereto. Even though the above circumstances are the same, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case was not reasonable without any need for further examination is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and regardless of the defendant's appraisal result, the plaintiff did not make any judgment as to the defendant's assertion that he decided the purchase price of the land of this case, and such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. The second ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)