[1] Whether an appraisal of at least two objects is a principle of individual appraisal (affirmative), and the requirements for exceptionally allowing a blanket assessment

[2] In a case where the appraiser assessed the sales price for the Eul church-owned properties located in the apartment complex Gap's apartment complex upon Gap's exercise of the right to demand sale of the apartment reconstruction project association, and assessed the above real properties en bloc, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in holding that Eul's collective appraisal of the above real properties did not constitute a whole transaction of the above real properties or an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use on the sole basis of the fact that Eul church used the above real properties as the annexed facilities of the church

[1] Article 3(3) of the Act on the Appraisal and Certified Appraisers provides that “The detailed principles and standards that an appraisal corporation, etc. shall comply with in order to ensure the fairness and rationality of an appraisal shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.” Article 7(1) of the Regulations on the Appraisal and Evaluation based on delegation provides that “an appraisal shall be carried out individually for each subject matter,” and Article 7(2) provides that “Where two or more subject matter are traded together or where one of them is indivisible for the purpose of use, an appraisal may be carried out collectively.” Therefore, an appraisal of two or more subject matter may be carried out in principle, but in exceptional cases where one is deemed to have an indivisible relationship for the transaction or use of two or more subject matter, a blanket assessment shall be allowed.

[2] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for comprehensive appraisal of the above real estate since Eul church did not register the ownership transfer before the enforcement of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, in case where Eul church uses the above real estate as a tenant's attached facilities, but it seems that the above real estate not only maintains independence in structure and use, but also is subject to individual transaction, and the value in case of individual appraisal is higher than that in case where Eul church uses the above real estate as an attached facilities of the church, and therefore it is difficult to conclude that the above real estate is traded in whole or indivisible in use solely on the grounds that Eul church uses the above real estate as an attached facilities of the church.

[1] Article 3(3) of the Act on Appraisal and Certified Appraisers; Article 7(1) and (2) of the Rules on Appraisal and Appraisal / [2] Article 3(3) of the Act on Appraisal and Certified Appraisers; Article 7(1) and (2) of the Rules on Appraisal and Appraisal

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2017Du61799 Decided January 25, 2018 (Gong2018Sang, 525)

Seocho-dong Apartment Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Law Firm Han-han, Attorney Lee Dan-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korean Film Association (Law Firm Huro, Attorneys Go Jong-seok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2048756 decided February 6, 2020

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that the Plaintiff’s exercise of claim for sale is unlawful

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected all the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s demand for sale is unlawful due to the Plaintiff’s failure to provide predicted contributions, etc., and that the instant disposition for authorization for establishment was made without a rearrangement zone designation and improvement plan, and that the Plaintiff’s exercise of claim

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record and related legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the right to demand sale, violating the Constitution regarding religious freedom and the guarantee of property rights

2. As to the assertion that the assessment of accessories, etc. was omitted, that the development gains were not properly reflected due to the error in the selection of comparative transaction cases, and that the application of capital yield was erroneous

The lower court rejected all of the Defendant’s arguments disputing the assessment results of the first instance appraiser and the fact-finding inquiry results of the first instance appraiser, and calculating the purchase price for each real estate listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “attached Form”) of the lower judgment, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on appraisal, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in

3. As to the assertion that there was error in lump sum assessment

A. The lower court determined that there was no error by the first instance appraiser in assessing the sales price for each real estate listed in the separate sheet by adopting the results of the appraisal by the first instance appraiser and the results of the inquiry inquiry by the first instance appraiser, and for the following reasons, the lower court did not err in comprehensively assessing each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 3 (including the right

1) Since each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through (3) is used in the meetings, activities, etc. of the defendant without distinction by heading, it can be deemed that all the real estate is traded in one unit or is in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use.

2) It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s name of the above heading room as a rest room, public book room, and wedding room is a separate object.

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

1) Article 3(3) of the Act on Appraisal and Certified Appraisers provides that “The detailed principles and criteria with which an appraisal corporation, etc. shall comply shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in order to ensure the fairness and rationality of an appraisal.” As a result of delegation, Article 7(1) of the Rules on Appraisal provides that “an appraisal shall be carried out individually for each subject matter,” and Article 7(2) provides that “Where two or more subject matter are jointly traded or where there is an indivisible relation for the purpose of use between the subject matter, an appraisal may be carried out collectively.” Therefore, an appraisal of two or more subject matter may, in principle, be carried out individually, but in exceptional cases where an indivisible relation is deemed to exist with two or more subject matter in the form of transaction or use (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Du61799, Jan. 25, 2018, etc.).

2) Examining the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the first instance court’s appraisal of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 is reasonable.

A) The Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, enacted on April 10, 1984, was enforced on April 11, 1985, and the registration of ownership was completed on December 28, 1979, which was held in the lower judgment. At that time, the registration of ownership was completed on the second commercial building as of December 28, 1979. In the case of the second commercial building, the registration of ownership was completed on January 13, 2009, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 18, 2014, with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 2 of the attached Table No. 1, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 18, 2014, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 18, 2014.

B) As of November 22, 2016, as of November 22, 2016, the Defendant, as a result of a church’s attached facilities, uses the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table as a small theater, a small meeting room, and a consignment room, and the real estate listed in Paragraph (2) of the attached Table as stated in Paragraph (3) of the attached Table, as a closed room. However, each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 3 of the attached Table is a substantial sectioned building, and maintains its structural independence

C) The appraiser in the first instance trial assessed each real estate (including the right to use a site) listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 on the ground that the Defendant used each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 as a facility annexed to the church, and assessed that each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 as a whole in the separate sheet (including the right to use a site), and reflected it in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 542.4m2 in the total charged area of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 319.68m2 stated in the separate sheet No. 1, + the total charged area of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3141.39m2 + the total charged area of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, 141.39m2 + the total charged area of the real estate indicated in the separate

D) However, in a case where the assessment of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 is conducted individually, individual comparison is made in terms of the size with the whole area of comparative transaction cases, which will be reflected in each individual factor of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3. In such a case, the number of individual factors in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 are likely to act in favor of the assessment of each real estate rather than the individual factor in the case where the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through 3 is comprehensively assessed, as the first instance trial appraiser conducted.

E) Each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 is a substantial sectioned, and the structural independence and independence in use are maintained, and the defendant appears to be subject to transaction individually as if he acquired each ownership in the order as seen earlier, and the value in the case of individual assessment can be higher than the value in the case of comprehensive assessment as seen earlier. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 of the separate sheet merely because the defendant uses each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 3 as a facility annexed to a church is traded as a whole or indivisible relation for use.

3) Nevertheless, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that there was no error in the outcome of the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance court who comprehensively assessed each of the above real estate. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for collective assessment, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)