(a) Market price assessment and appraisal based on the premise that the liquidation money for the excessive area has already been liquidated, where the excessive area is included in the land scheduled for replotting as well as the right area to be appraised;

(b) Damages suffered by a third party from an appraiser's improper appraisal;

A. The market price should be calculated in light of all the conditions, such as the land substitution area and the liquidation amount to be determined after a disposition of replotting against excessive area, in case where the land subject to the market price appraisal is the land subject to the land substitution and the excessive area is included in more than half of the total area of the right, the liquidation amount equivalent to the excessive area shall be borne by the landowner according to the determination of the land substitution in the future. As such, in assessing such land substitution, the price should be calculated based on the land substitution area, and the liquidation amount to be determined after a disposition of replotting against excessive area is taken into account. If the appraiser assessed the market price on the premise that the liquidation amount for excessive area has already been settled without considering the above circumstances while appraising the land substitution as above, it constitutes the case where the appraiser as provided in

(b) Damages sustained by a third party due to unfair appraisal by an appraiser shall be limited to the amount paid or borne by the third party which would not have been paid if there had been no unfair appraisal.

(a) Article 20 of the Act on Appraisal and Assessment;

x Monas

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na780 decided June 5, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the decision of the court below, the defendant, as an authorized appraiser, had been ordered to appraise the above real estate auction case of 85ta1359, 1985, Jul. 3, 1985, 115-11, 35, 115-17, 115-22, and 55-22, and the appraisal report was submitted to the above court by including the total of 3 parcels of the site of this case and 55 square meters, and the remaining appraisal area of the land of this case was 15 square meters at 200,000,000,000,0000 20,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

According to Article 20 of the Appraisal and Assessment Act, if a person engaged in an appraisal business conducted an appraisal by intention or negligence and causes damages to a bona fide third party in good faith at the time of appraisal, such damages are assessed. As determined by the court below, as determined by the court below, the liquidation amount equivalent to the excessive area shall be borne by the landowner according to the determination of land substitution in addition to half of the area of rights. Thus, in assessing such land substitution, the price shall be calculated based on the land substitution area, taking into account the specific circumstances of the right area and the excessive area, and the settlement amount to be determined after the disposition of land substitution as to the excessive area shall be taken into account, and even if the defendant conducted an appraisal by the method as stated in its reasoning on the premise that the liquidation amount of the excessive area is already liquidated at the time of appraisal, the liquidation amount of the land in this case should be determined by negligence, and if the plaintiff believed that there is no burden on the liquidation amount at the time of appraisal, it shall not be deemed that there is a fault in the process of the successful bidder in good faith.

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the defendant liable for damages under Article 20 of the Appraisal and Evaluation Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out in the lawsuit.

In addition, the court below determined that the liquidation money in the decision on the excessive area determined to be borne by the plaintiff as the owner after the disposition of land substitution in addition to the amount paid by the plaintiff as the successful bidder at the auction procedure conducted based on the defendant's appraisal price based on the above unfair appraisal by the plaintiff, constitutes this, and then the court below calculated the amount of compensation in consideration of the negligence as stated in the judgment of the plaintiff

As in the case of this case, the amount of damages suffered by a third party due to the improper appraisal by the appraiser is equivalent to the amount of expenses that would not have been paid if there had been no unfair appraisal, and the court below is just in calculating the amount equivalent to the liquidation amount of the plaintiff's damages in the same purport, and there is no error of law that misleads the circumstances of damages. All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)