1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2014, this Court rendered a decision of voluntary auction commencement as D with respect to the 2,106 square meters of the warehouse site in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun, a limited liability company B owned by an agricultural company, and its ground and machinery structure, and ordered F, a certified public appraiser affiliated with E certified public appraisal corporation, to assess the subject matter of the auction.

B. Accordingly, F conducted on-site investigations from September 15, 2014 to the 23th day of the same month, and submitted an appraisal report on the said auction subject matter to this court on the 26th day of the same month. According to the appraisal report above, the entire appraisal value of the said auction subject matter is KRW 422,758,140, and the appraisal value of the machinery apparatus (type 14, 3 on the circumstances) among them is KRW 61,674,00.

C. After doing so, this Court made a decision to permit the sale of the said auction subject matter to the Plaintiff, who reported to purchase at the highest price (425,000,000 won) on June 29, 2015, by preparing a detailed statement of the auction subject matter as to the said auction subject matter, setting the minimum sale price, etc.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's No. 1-5, 9, 10, Eul's evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. At the time of the on-site investigation, F, a private person entrusted with official duties, did not verify the above machinery apparatus at the time of the on-site investigation and prepared the above appraisal report in bad faith, such as assessing the market price based only on the previous appraisal, and the public official in charge of auction in this court did not properly verify the above error.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages (the difference between the appraised value of the machinery and the actual transaction price) suffered by the plaintiff pursuant to the main sentence of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act.

3. The fact that the appraisal of the above machinery machinery, etc. was conducted on or around May 2016 for bank loans, comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and the appraisal results of appraiser G’s market price.