[1] The scope of violation of Article 33 subparag. 4 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

[2] The case holding that where an appraisal business entity failed to verify the machinery subject to appraisal and prepares a false appraisal report as if it had been verified and appraised comprehensively, it constitutes a violation of Article 33 subparagraph 4 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

[1] A crime of violation of Article 33 subparag. 4 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 18, 200) is established when an appraisal violates the principles and standards of appraisal and assessment established pursuant to Article 22 of the said Act, or violates the duty of good faith and good faith, thereby resulting in a failure of fairness and rationality.

[2] The case holding that where an appraisal business entity failed to verify the machinery subject to appraisal and prepares a false appraisal report as if it were verified and made a comprehensive appraisal, it constitutes a violation of Article 33 subparagraph 4 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

[1] Articles 22, 27(1), and 33 subparag. 4 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 18, 200) / [2] Articles 27(1) and 33 subparag. 4 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 18, 200)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do361 Delivered on April 24, 2001

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Im Jong-soo

Daejeon District Court Decision 2002No2558 Delivered on March 27, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 22 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 18, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.") provides that in order to ensure fairness and rationality in appraisal of land, etc., the principles and standards to be observed by appraisal business operators shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Article 27 (1) of the same Act provides that appraisal business operators shall maintain their dignity in conducting appraisal business, conduct appraisal in good faith and sincerity, shall not intentionally conceal or make a false appraisal, and Articles 33 subparagraph 4 through 27 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding five million won. Thus, a violation of Article 33 subparagraph 4 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands Act shall be established by violating the principles and standards of appraisal and assessment established pursuant to Article 22 of the same Act, or by violating the duty of good faith and good faith.

According to the records, the defendant, who is an appraisal business operator, conducted appraisal of machinery, etc. installed inside a factory in the original form of Daejeon District Court around 99 YY 2914, around October 18, 199 with regard to the above real estate auction case. The appraisal report states that "this case's appraisal was assessed at a uniform price taking into account various factors, such as structure, annual type, capacity, capacity, degree of construction and condition, etc.," and that the defendant's act was not in violation of the above 7 appraisal report's duty of manufacturing and assessment as well as 90,000,000,0000,0000, which were composed of 70,000,0000,0000,000,0000, 7,000,000, 7,000,000, 7,000,000, 7,00,000, 7,000.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)