The meaning of a bona fide third person under Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act

The term "third party in good faith" under Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act means a third party who is not aware of the contents of appraisal, and in cases where it is prohibited to use a written appraisal for any purpose other than the purpose of appraisal or to use it by any other person than the client.

Article 26 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act

Neglect Electronic Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Byung-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Samsung-type (Attorney Im Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 39,935,872 won with 25% interest per annum from the date of this decision to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, 4, 5-1 through 3, 7-1, 2, 9, 11, and 8, and the testimony of the witness secretary 1, 2, 3-1, 3-4, 5-1 through 3, 7-1, 7-2, 9, 11, and 8, and there is no counter-proof.

A. A. Around November 1995, the Plaintiff, a company manufacturing and selling electronic equipment, entered into an agency contract with Nonparty Company (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to supply the Plaintiff’s electronic equipment, etc. to Nonparty Company and to pay the price to the Plaintiff by selling the electronic equipment, etc. to Nonparty Company, but to provide the consumers with certain security regarding the obligation to pay for the goods.

B. On November 1, 1995, the non-party company was a certified public appraiser recognized as qualified under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (hereinafter the above Act), and requested the defendant, who is operating the "official appraisal office", to conduct an appraisal for general transactions (referring to the market price) in order to refer to the purchase of each real estate listed in the attached list owned by the non-party YA, the mother mother mother, the representative director of the non-party company. Accordingly, on the 29th day of the same month, the defendant prepared an appraisal for the land of this case at the price point of time 840,000,000, the total amount of KRW 454,124,00,000 for the building and KRW 1,294,124,000 for the building, and issued it to the non-party company.

C. The Plaintiff: (a) received each of the instant real estate from the Nonparty Company as collateral under the above agency contract; and (b) received and examined the said appraisal report; and (c) traded KRW 700,000,000 equivalent to the said KRW 60% based on the Defendant’s above appraisal value; (b) on December 14, 1995, the Daejeon District Court registered and received each of the instant real estate as the claim amounting to KRW 1,00,000,000, KRW 12795,000, KRW 12795.

D. When the non-party company was under transaction with the Plaintiff on February 10, 1996 and was subject to the disposition of suspension of banking transactions, the non-party company was under transaction with the Plaintiff. On February 22, 1996, the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal to the payment site of KRW 696,100,000 total face value of three promissory notes issued by the non-party company for the payment of the goods. However, the Plaintiff was refused to pay

E. Accordingly, on March 12, 1996, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction on each of the instant real estate with the Daejeon District Court 96Ma8222, and at the above auction procedure, each of the instant real estate was sold at KRW 361,00,000, and the Plaintiff was awarded KRW 696,100,000 for the said goods at the auction price on October 29, 1996, and KRW 72,418,300 for the total amount of KRW 26,318,30 for the said goods at the auction price and interest thereon KRW 354,625,653 out of the bonds.

2. The plaintiff's claim and judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's claim

The Plaintiff: (a) on November 29, 1995, the Defendant appraised each of the instant real property at KRW 593,606,880; (b) on November 29, 1995, the adequate appraised value of KRW 1,294,124,00; (c) on purpose or by negligence, the Plaintiff trusted the appraisal result at KRW 70,00,000, which is equivalent to KRW 696,100,000, which is equivalent to KRW 345,000; (d) the Plaintiff supplied KRW 365,00,000 to the Nonparty Company for the execution of the claim for the above goods; (e) the amount of KRW 354,625,653, which was paid to the Plaintiff; and (e) the amount of KRW 365,675,6365,00,000 which was actually distributed to the Nonparty Company; and (e) the Plaintiff, if the Defendant had had an adequate appraisal value of each of the instant real property, was distributed KRW 363636365,5,5636360,565.

(b) Markets:

(1) First, we examine whether the Defendant conducted an appraisal of each of the instant real estate.

In light of the above facts, the Defendant calculated the appraisal value of each of the above real estate at 00 square meters by comparing the above appraisal value of 00 square meters with the appraisal value of 10 square meters, the Defendant calculated the appraisal value of 20 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 40 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 square meters per 60 meters per 60 square meters per 60 meters per 60 square meters per 40 square meters per 20 won per 1 square meters per 60 square meters per 200 square meters per 200 square meters per 200 square meters per 60.

(2) Next, we examine whether the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide third party under Article 26(1) of the above Act.

Article 26 (1) of the above Act provides that "If an appraisal business operator causes damage to a client or a bona fide third party by intentionally or negligently making an appraisal at the time of appraisal at the request of a third party, an appraisal business operator shall be liable for such damage." The above Act provides that liability for damages to an appraisal business operator shall include not only the client's default liability but also tort liability against a third party. The scope of "third party" in appraisal and assessment of collateral is limited to a person who is subject to auction or appraisal at the time of appraisal and assessment, such as an auction or auction creditor, or an auction debtor, or a third party related to the appraisal and assessment at the request of a third party, and there is no reason to limit the appraisal to a person who is identical with the client, and even other third parties, if the appraisal and assessment is bona fide, it shall be used only for the purpose of appraisal and assessment at the time of appraisal, and thus, it shall not be recognized that the appraisal and assessment of the third party is not aware of the value of the appraisal and assessment at the time of appraisal and assessment other than that of the third party."

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without any further need to be judged.

Judges Kim Nam-tae (Presiding Judge)