beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance shall be referred to as " and", part 3 as " April 7, 2014", part 2 as " April 17, 2014", and part 4 as "Article 14 subparagraph 7" in part 6 below as "Article 14 subparagraph 17", respectively.
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendants calculated the assessed amount significantly different from the assessed amount, which is the adequate compensation, by excluding the fact that the instant land was permitted to change the form and quality of a building that does not entail the construction of a building. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the assessed amount much higher than the assessed amount, which is the adequate compensation. Accordingly, the Defendants caused damage to the Plaintiff by making an appraisal that substantially differs from the assessed amount intentionally or by negligence. Therefore, the Defendant consultative evaluation corporation is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the tort under Article 36 of the former Act on the Public Announcement of Real Estate Values and Appraisal (amended by Act No. 14839, Jul. 26, 2017; hereinafter “former Act”) or Article 750 of the Civil Act, based on the tort under Article 36 of the same Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act.
B. Since the Defendant Consultation Evaluation Corporation’s authority to determine the actual use of the land of this case is not an appraisal business operator, the Defendants cannot be evaluated differently from the land protocol prepared by the Plaintiff.
In addition, the Defendants did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request, even though they requested the Plaintiff to submit data on the land use situation.
Therefore, the land category and the actual situation of the Defendants’ registry are as follows.