[1] Whether it is a fact-finding fact-finding authority to determine the fact-finding or ratio on the grounds of limitation of liability in calculating the amount of damages for tort or nonperformance (affirmative in principle)

[2] Details of the duty of care required for an appraisal business entity to individually appraise land

[3] In a case where a local government-invested public corporation Gap, an implementer of a housing project, sought compensation for damages against the Korea Appraisal Board, etc. who conducted an appraisal of the land subject to expropriation on the grounds of unfair appraisal, the case affirming the judgment below that recognized the liability for damages of the Korea Appraisal Board, etc. on the ground that there was a proximate causal link between the violation of the duty of care of the Korea Appraisal Board and the damages of the local government-invested public corporation Gap, on the ground that the appraisal of the Korea Appraisal Board, etc., such as selecting a standard

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 3, 28(1) of the Act on Appraisal and Certified Appraisers, Articles 6(1), 10(1), and 14 of the Rules on Appraisal and Appraisal / [3] Articles 3, 28(1), 6(1), 10(1), and 14 of the Rules on Appraisal and Certified Appraisers

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2012Da107662 Decided March 20, 2015 (Gong2015Sang, 595), Supreme Court Decision 2016Da249557 Decided June 8, 2017 (Gong2017Ha, 1457) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da56416 Decided May 25, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1249)

Gyeonggi-do City Corporation (Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Sung-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Appraisal Board and four others (Law Firm Dong-LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2023023 decided May 15, 2019

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by the Defendants are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The obligor’s liability may be restricted in calculating the amount of damages due to tort or nonperformance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da107662, Mar. 20, 2015). The fact-finding of the grounds for limitation of liability or setting the rate thereof is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is manifestly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da249557, Jun. 8, 2017).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s fact-finding or its determination on the grounds for limitation of liability cannot be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the defendants' assertion that they did not breach their duty of care

Where an appraisal business entity conducts an appraisal and assessment as a result of a determination of economic value of land, etc. at the request of a third party and conducts an appraisal and assessment of land at the price individually, it shall verify objects by the on-site investigation, and shall take into comprehensive account the price fluctuation rate from the standard date of publication to the price base date based on the officially announced value of one or more reference land located in the same or similar areas such as the relevant land and use, land category, surrounding environment, etc., restrictions on or cancellation of the use, disposal, etc. of land under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes affecting land price fluctuations, changes in the form and quality of land or land category, and other matters, such as changes in the form and quality of land as a whole, and shall perform an appraisal and assessment with good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da56416, May 25, 199, etc.).

The lower court determined that the Defendants did not properly confirm the illegality of the wrongful appraisal, the use condition of the goods subject to appraisal, and the public law limit, on the ground that: (i) although the construction of the instant land was impossible in principle, the Defendants failed to select a standard for comparison with the land where a building (cafeteria) was lawfully constructed on the ground; (ii) the instant land was in a state where restrictions under the public law, such as the possibility of construction of a building, can be suspected because it could be known without a big difficulty in using it as a parking lot that has no actual usage due to a field investigation; (iii) the relevant appraisal corporation is in fact aware of this fact; and (iv) the details of the land prepared by the Plaintiff are not bound by the Defendants; and (iv) the matters concerning the public law limitation, etc. that could affect the appraisal should be identified by the Defendants, an expert in the appraisal and assessment, on the ground that the Defendants did not properly confirm the illegality of the appraisal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of an appraisal business entity’s duty of care.

B. As to the assertion that there is no proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ breach of duty of care and the Plaintiff’s damage

The lower court determined that there exists a proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ unfair appraisal and the Plaintiff’s damage on the grounds that the Defendants’ appraisal result, as an appraiser, became the important criteria for the land owner’s consultation or the adjudication of expropriation, and that the agreement or the adjudication of expropriation would have been made in accordance with the amount unless there exist any particular circumstances, and that the Defendants, an appraisal business entity, could have easily predicted it; ② the Plaintiff consulted with the land owner according to the appraisal result by the Defendants; and the Plaintiff did not raise an

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on proximate causal relation, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. As to the assertion that the assessment of damages is unlawful

The court below determined that the reasonable price of the land of this case was assessed based on the following facts: (a) the reasonable price of the land of this case was assessed based on the changes in the form and quality of land not accompanied by the construction of the building; and (b) as a result, the Plaintiff’s damages was KRW 316,97,50 (=52,492,500 won paid by the Plaintiff’s expropriation adjudication amount – KRW 235,515,000).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the determination of damages, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)