In a case where Gap corporation filed a claim for damages against Eul corporation on the ground that Eul corporation provided Eul corporation with a land subject to appraisal on the basis of trust in appraisal of Eul corporation's appraisal, but suffered losses not recovered of financial funds, the case holding that Eul corporation has a duty to compensate for damages suffered by Eul corporation, a bona fide third party, due to the above appraisal and appraisal, and the total amount of financial amount provided by Eul corporation is the amount of damages caused by Eul corporation's unfair appraisal, within the scope of the difference between the security value calculated based on the unfair appraisal price and the security value calculated based on the reasonable appraisal price, since the appraisal and appraisal is recognized as non-conformity between the appraisal and appraisal price.

In a case where Gap corporation provided Eul corporation with financial services as collateral to Byung corporation with trust in appraisal of appraisal business operators Eul corporation, and thereafter claimed compensation for damages against Eul corporation on the ground that the land subject to appraisal was less than 1/25 of the appraisal amount at auction, the case holding that Eul corporation is obligated to compensate for damages suffered by bona fide third party Gap corporation due to the above appraisal business under Article 26 (1) of the former Act on the Appraisal of Land, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995) and that the appraisal value of land subject to appraisal clearly heat compared to the comparison standard of land subject to appraisal selected and selected as a general commercial area within the urban planning zone as a place for accommodation, which is a quasi-urban area, is superior to the comparison standard of land subject to appraisal, and that there is a significant difference between appraisal price and the appraisal price and the reasonable price; thus, Eul corporation is not obliged to faithfully set the reasonable maximum amount of compensation within the reasonable amount of compensation calculated based on the difference between the appraisal value and the appraisal value calculated based on the appraisal value of land subject to be secured.

Articles 9 (see current Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act), 26(1) (see current Article 36(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act), 17 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 345, Dec. 31, 2002); Articles 393, 396, and 763 of the Civil Act

Central Lease Finance Corporation

Korean Lease Credit Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-gu, Attorney Park Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Appraisal Board (Attorney Hwang Jong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 9Da1847 delivered on December 26, 2003

Daejeon High Court Decision 2004Na1088 Decided August 23, 2006

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da64627 Decided September 10, 2009

June 22, 2011

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff's successor 9,713,504,150 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from November 9, 1994 to July 15, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The part of the judgment against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's successor's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation, 50% of the costs incurred between the plaintiff, the succeeding intervenor and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the succeeding intervenor.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff 19,497,400,300 won with 5% interest per annum from November 9, 1994 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 1994, the Seoul Liart Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Liart”) entrusted the Defendant with the appraisal of the land (hereinafter “land subject to appraisal”) 26-1 and 4 (hereinafter “Seoul Liart”) in order to provide it as a security and to receive a loan for money.

On July 14, 1994, the Defendant: (a) assessed the value of the 26-1 land in Hopyeong-dong, Hopyeong-dong (40,000 won per square meter); (b) assessed the total value of the land subject to appraisal as KRW 51,921,90,900,000; and (c) submitted an appraisal report stating the place of submission (the name of the bond agency) as the “branch of Dong-dong Bank” (hereinafter “instant appraisal report”) with the “branch of Dong-dong Bank.” (hereinafter “instant appraisal report”).

B. The Seoul Liart offered land as collateral and sought a loan on the basis of the instant appraisal report, but the loans were refused from the same branch of the Daedong-dong Bank.

C. After doing so, Seoul Liber submitted an appraisal report prepared by the Defendant to the Central Lease Bank (hereinafter “Central Lease”) in order to obtain lease finance and rental financing from the Central Lease Bank (hereinafter “Central Lease”). After reviewing the said appraisal report, the Central Lease decided that the land subject to appraisal is a sufficient security, and that it will provide financial services to Seoul Liber.

Accordingly, on September 29, 1994, the Central Lease entered into a lease agreement on the 87 kinds of items, such as the Seoul Liart and the Sglass Plusp pumps that the Seoul Liart purchased from the Geum River Plusp. (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”). The lease agreement of this case was completed on September 30, 1994 as to the land of 16 lots of the Seoul Liart site, including the land subject to appraisal on September 30, 1994, whose maximum debt amount is 2.5 billion won.

On November 9, 1994, the Central Lease entered into a siren financial contract for 7 kinds of goods, such as skiing, (hereinafter “instant siren contract”) with Seoul Liber, and added the siren fee to the secured obligation.

The remainder of the land, other than the land subject to appraisal, was a land being developed and operated as a skiing ground site, and the said 16 parcel of land had already been provided as a security for other existing finance, and the priority mortgage was established over the maximum debt amount of 26.2 billion won.

D. Under the lease contract of this case, the Central Lease provided the Seoul Lriart with the financing of KRW 7,420,000,000 on September 30, 1994, and KRW 11,132,040,040 on October 14, 1994, and KRW 18,52,040,000 on a total, and provided the Seoul Lriart with the financing of KRW 2,504,810,000 on November 9, 1994 under the lease contract of this case.

In addition, on September 30, 1994, the Central Lease received 927,602,00 won as the lease deposit of this case on September 30, 1994, and received KRW 1,331,739,700 in total, including the first lease fee of KRW 404,137,700 on October 14, 1994, and received KRW 227,710,000 in total and KRW 70,39,100 in the first rental contract deposit of this case on November 9, 1994.

E. On November 15, 1994, Seoul Liart did not pay the lease fee from the second payment date of the lease fee, and on November 23, 1994, the Seoul Liart did not pay the lease fee.

F. The Central Lease terminated the Lease Agreement on October 8, 1997, and December 10, 1994, respectively. The Lease, a senior mortgagee, applied for a voluntary auction on the land subject to appraisal. The land subject to appraisal is awarded KRW 2 billion at the fifteenth auction date around September 1998, and the claim of the senior mortgagee was not properly appropriated.

G. Central Lease transferred all the rights under the instant lease agreement and the rental agreement (including the Defendant’s right to claim damages due to the Defendant’s wrongful appraisal) to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the said fact on September 14, 199 (around this day, the Central Lease withdrawn from this lawsuit with the Defendant’s consent).

[Reasons for Recognition] A.1 through 16 (including each number), A19-1 through 47, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the establishment of liability for damages

A. Summary of the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's assertion

On July 14, 1994, the Defendant assessed 6,253,135,200 won, which is a reasonable price of the land subject to appraisal as of July 14, 1994 (the appraisal price of Nonparty 3 of the first instance trial), which is remarkably different from that of the land subject to appraisal (the appraisal price of Nonparty 3 of the first instance trial) by intention or negligence, and assessed 51,921,90,90,000 won, and considering the total amount of the existing secured claim established on the land subject to appraisal by the Central Lease, a bona fide third party, who trusted it, 20,875,000,000 won, the Defendant determined that the above land has adequate secured value and provided financial services as security. After doing so, the Defendant was liable for damages to the Intervenor’s acquisition of the land price under the former Land Price Disclosure and Land Appraisal Act (amended by Act No. 5135, Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B. Methods and details of the appraisal on the instant appraisal report

(1) At the time, the land located at the boundary point of the Singyeong-dong 26-1 located in the Singyeong-do and the Namyang-si, Gyeonggi-do (administrative district as of July 14, 1994) was located near the southwest of the tunnel, and was adjacent to the skiing ground site operated by Seoul Rig-do. The said land was designated as the site for the existing skiing ground by the Gyeonggi-do Governor on July 4, 1994 according to the approval of the alteration of the registered sports facility business plan for the sports facility business as of July 4, 1994.

Seoul Triart started construction of the said land as a lodging facility site based on the approval of the above business plan, and cut down a considerable part of standing timber that was growing on the ground around July 14, 1994, the point at which the Defendant’s appraisal price base was determined, and the entire topography was maintained close to the original form. However, at that time, the above land was not subject to condominium building permission.

In addition, the above land was a quasi-urban area or a sports and recreational district under the former Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (amended by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994) at the time. The above land was considered to have obtained various permissions, such as permission for diversion of farmland, permission for cutting standing trees, permission for changing the form and quality of land, after obtaining approval for the business plan from registered sports facilities (Article 31 of the Installation

Meanwhile, in gold-si 208-1 1,157 square meters selected by the Defendant as a comparative standard land according to the appraisal method as seen below, it belongs to a general commercial area within the urban planning zone, and the land category and the actual use situation in the public record were full-time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5's evidence 1, 2, Eul 1's evidence 1 to 31, non-party 3's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) At the time of July 14, 1994, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the land was in the site development project as a prospective accommodation site; (b) on the ground that the land was in the site development project as a prospective accommodation site; (c) on the ground that the land was in the site development project, it was selected as a comparative standard site; and (d) assessed the reasonable price of the land subject to appraisal; and (c) the method and content of the appraisal (hereinafter “instant appraisal”) are as follows.

① Based on this, the Defendant calculated the reasonable price of the land of Hopyeong-dong 208-1 by selecting the land as a comparative standard and by coordinating the time point according to the land fluctuation rate and the overall price formation factors.

② The Defendant assessed the same administrative conditions, such as the restriction under public law, compared to the land of Hopyeong-dong 208-1, which is a standard for comparison of the land of Hopyeong-dong 26-1, and assessed the same conditions, such as size, shape, gradient and direction, ground and geological features, and assessed the street conditions of 0.87 degree high to 0.05 degree high to 1.05 degree high to 1.15 degree high to environmental conditions. The environmental conditions are 1.15 degree high to 1.2 degree high to 1.2 degree high to the future trend, possibility, utility, degree of use, and profitability according to other investment conditions, even if considering the above heat conditions, the Defendant assessed the reasonable price of the land of Hopdong 26-1, Hop-dong 320,000 won higher than the compared standard land price, and assessed the reasonable price of the land of 320,400/400 square meters higher than the compared standard land price.

C. Whether the appraisal of this case is improper

(1) Whether the appraisal method of this case was negligent in adopting the method of appraisal (the method of comparison of the officially assessed land price of non-standard land)

The former Act, which was enforced at the time of the Defendant’s appraisal and assessment, stipulates that when an appraisal and assessment business entity individually evaluates land at the request of another person, it shall follow the “Comparison Act of the Standard Land Values” (Article 9(1)4 and 5 of the former Act) to maintain a balance between the price of the land subject to appraisal and the officially assessed price of the standard land in comparison with various factors affecting the objective value of the land subject to appraisal based on the officially assessed value of the standard land deemed to have similar usefulness to the relevant land (Article 22 of the former Act). In addition, in the regulations on the appraisal and assessment at the time of delegation of Article 22 of the former Act, there was a provision that the said method shall be followed (Article 17 of the Rule).

Therefore, as long as the former Act at the time of the instant appraisal and assessment, which was regulating the appraisal and assessment system, had such regulations, it is not recognized that the Defendant was negligent in adopting the “Compared Act of the officially assessed price of non-standard land.”

(2) Issues in the contents of the instant appraisal

An appraisal business entity shall consider uncertainty during the lending period, possibility of fluctuation of collateral, etc. in the appraisal of collateral in order to ensure the safe and reliable collection of credit in the appraisal of collateral. If a debtor fails to repay his/her normal debt, a creditor is to recover his/her claim through the disposal of collateral, and thus, a creditor is required to evaluate the price at which he/she can dispose of his/her claim at an appropriate amount within a given period. In addition, the suitability of land under changes in form and quality shall be determined by examining whether the act of change in form and quality is illegal, progress, possibility of completion, etc., and the land which is being created as a housing site, etc. with permission for diversion of farmland or forest or with permission for change in the form and quality of land for the purpose of construction of a building, etc

In relation to the instant case, the following errors are recognized when the Defendant selected land 208-1 in Hoyeong-dong as a comparative standard and assessed and assessed the land 26-1 in Hoyeong-dong, Pyeongtaek-dong with the degree of 1.38 degrees compared to the comparative standard and assessed at a level of 440,000/m2 at a reasonable price of land 26-1 in Hoyeong-dong, Dong-dong.

(1) Non-conforming choice of comparative standard land

As seen earlier, the land in Pyeongtaek-dong 26-1 at the time of the appraisal and assessment was recognized as the planned accommodation site, which is a forest where the specific use area was quasi-urban area, while the specific use area was the same as the general commercial area in the urban planning area. In other words, the land used to be compared was the land that can be used for profit-making business other than the container construction business (the substantial amount of funds of KRW 26-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000) being promoted at the time of the appraisal and assessment, while the land used to be used for profit-making business such as the construction of commercial buildings and the construction of the main complex building.

Therefore, in light of the fact that there were the same reference land in the vicinity of the land subject to appraisal of this case as forest land, it is erroneous to determine that the Defendant’s choice as a comparative standard of the land of Hopdong 208-1, Hopdong 208-1, which is similar to the land of Hopdong 208-1 and land of Hopdong 208-1, which is not likely to be used for the beneficial business except for the container construction project where the large amount of funds of KRW 200 million are invested, is not likely to be used for the beneficial business, and the land of KRW 208-1, which is similar to the land of Hopdong 208-1, Hopdong 208-1, which is used for various profitable business.

(2) The assessment of individual factors shall be non-conforming.

The Defendant’s individual factors assessment, which is premised on the fact that the Seoul Liart’s construction plan for the container building on the land of Hopyeong-dong 26-1 was formulated, is also erroneous.

i) The circumstances acknowledged as seen above, which were approved as the scheduled area for accommodation for the above land, and some lumbering were carried out. However, the project was not completed at the time of the appraisal, and the container construction permit was not yet carried out, and the project was required to carry out the plan (in addition, even though the Defendant should have taken into account the progress of the project at the time of the appraisal, it did not properly take into account the cost of civil engineering for the site creation work, but did not take into account the progress of the project at the time of the appraisal) Seoul Liart caused serious financial difficulties due to the failure to raise funds for the operation of the existing project (the evidence No. 20, No. 11, No. 21-1, No. 1, and No. 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings), the Defendant’s appraisal based on the success of the project was lacking in rationality.

ii) Also, as recognized earlier, the land in Pyeongtaek-dong 26-1 is located in a quasi-urban area, while the comparative standard is located in the urban planning area, and the land in Pyeongtaek-dong 26-1 requires enormous costs for flat operations as forest land and civil engineering works, while the comparative standard is in need of a separate flat operations, and the cost, time, effort, risk, etc. incurred until the land for the building actually usable is created as the site for the building, such as where a separate flat operations are not required, all of the costs, hours, effort, danger, etc. are considered to be greater, and the accessibility to the public facilities and other commercial areas is also better than the land in Pyeongtaek-dong 26-1 and the defendant's comparative standard place is greater than the land in the downtown-dong dong 26-1.

In addition, taking full account of all circumstances that may affect the price, such as the diversity of uses and the easiness of transactions in the future, it is difficult to view that the land in Hopon 26-1 is superior to the defendant's comparative standard in terms of price at the time of the defendant's appraisal and assessment.

Furthermore, even though Seoul Triju 26-1 was promoting a construction plan for contact with the skiing site in operation at the time of Seoul Triju, the above land was not used as a skiing site, and it was sold at auction separately from the site for skiing ground (it was naturally considered that the appraisal purpose of this case was the purpose of securing the possibility of the appraisal) in the above land is a blind land not adjacent to the public service, the defendant's appraisal cannot be accepted, provided that the street conditions are higher than 1.05 times compared to the comparative standard, and the conditions of access are higher than 1.1 times.

(3) Whether there is a substantial difference between the appraisal price and the reasonable price of this case, and whether the central lease constitutes a bona fide third party

(1) The existence of significant differences.

Article 26(1) of the former Act provides that “When an appraisal business operator causes damage to a client or a bona fide third party by making an appraisal at the request of a third party with a substantial difference from the reasonable price at the time of the appraisal or by making a false statement on the appraisal document, the appraisal business operator shall be liable for the damage.”

In the instant case, based on the sale price (2 billion won) formed in the auction market, there is a difference between 25 times and 25 times and 51.9 billion won (5.9 billion won ± 2.0 billion won), and even if compared with the appraisal price (17,143,383,000 won) of Non-party 7 of the first instance trial, which is the largest price among the present appraisal prices in the process of the first instance trial and the party trial, there is a difference between 30 billion won and 51.9 billion won (51.9 billion won - 17.1 billion won), it is obvious that each appraiser has a significant difference to the maximum extent possible, even if the appraisal is not easy due to the characteristics of the instant land subject to appraisal, which is recognized in light of the fact that the appraisal is not identical, and the change in the economic situation at the time, etc.

In addition, even if the Defendant’s mistake in the selection of the comparative standard, as seen earlier, there is a significant difference between the reasonable price and the 00 billion won since it is assessed that the land subject to appraisal which is clearly recorded compared to the comparative standard is extremely high (i.e., the 38% appraised value has increased) compared to the comparative standard, and there is a difference between the reasonable price and the 400 billion won.

(2) A bona fide third person.

The term "a bona fide third party" in Article 26 (1) of the former Act means a third party who is not aware of the content of an appraisal in good faith of the appraisal at the time of the appraisal, and in cases where the appraisal report itself does not use the appraisal report for any purpose other than the purpose of the appraisal request or it is stipulated that the appraisal report cannot be used by any other person than the client, as well as the appraisal report itself, means a third party who is not aware of such use (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da28661, Sept

On September 30, 1994, on which the Central Lease signed the instant lease agreement, requested the Defendant to change the name of the claims agency, the Defendant, without any particular review, transferred the name of the claims agency to the Central Lease, and thereafter, paid the purchase price of the leased goods and the purchase price of the rental (each testimony of Non-Party 8 and 9 as witnesses of the first instance trial). The Central Lease constitutes a bona fide third party.

(4) In light of the above facts, the Central Lease may be deemed to have suffered loss by paying the purchase price of each of the instant lease goods and sirens to Geum River Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Peng Pegi

Therefore, under Article 26(1) of the former Act, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages incurred by the central lease due to the appraisal of this case.

3. Determination on the scope of damages

A. Calculation of damages

The amount of damages suffered by the central lease in the course of providing lease financing, etc. which goes beyond reasonable appraisal values of the Defendant is within the difference between the value of security calculated on the basis of unfair appraisal prices and the value of security calculated on the basis of reasonable appraisal prices (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da56416, May 25, 199, etc.). This is determined at the time when the Plaintiff performed the lease financing, etc.

The appraisal price according to the appraisal report of this case is KRW 51,921,90,00, and the maximum debt amount of the registration of creation of mortgage over the land subject to appraisal of this case is KRW 20,875,000,000. The maximum debt amount of the registration of creation of mortgage over the land subject to appraisal of this case is KRW 21,056,850,000 (=the purchase price of each lease of this case 18,52,040,000 + the purchase price of each rental of this case 2,504,810,000. The actual successful bid price of each rental of this case was KRW 2 billion. The appraisal price of the land subject to appraisal of this case was 6,253,135,200,000,000. The appraisal price of Nonparty 3 calculated the reasonable price of the land subject to appraisal of this case according to a method of pre-determined appraisal, which is a kind of cost method, is recognized.

In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the reasonable price of the land subject to appraisal of this case does not exceed 17,143,383,00 won.

In the same way, prior mortgage was established on the land subject to appraisal of this case with a maximum amount of 20,875,00,000 won, which is the secured debt amount exceeding 17,143,383,000 won, which is the above adequate amount of 17,875,00 won, and as a result, there is no collateral value of the land subject to appraisal of this case at the time, and as a result, there is no collateral value of the land subject to appraisal of this case, and as a result, there is a difference between the value of security calculated on the basis of unfair appraisal prices and the value of security calculated on the basis of legitimate appraisal prices (51,921,90,900 - 20,875,000 won - 0 won), which is the financial amount provided by the Central Lease, the amount of damages caused by the defendant's unfair appraisal.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor KRW 1,629,841,700 (i.e., KRW 927,602,00 for the lease contract deposit of this case + KRW 404,137,700 for the lease contract of this case + KRW 227,710,00 for the lease contract of this case + KRW 19,427,00 for the lease contract of this case + KRW 70,392,00 for one siren for the lease contract of this case + KRW 70,392,00 for the lease contract of this case).

B. Limitation on liability

The defendant's liability is limited to 50% in consideration of the following reasons, which is acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts, Gap evidence 20, Gap evidence 8, 9, 11, and Eul evidence 6-8, 9, 12, 18, 20, 30, 41, and 43, Eul evidence 6-28, and Eul evidence 8 and 9, the testimony of non-party 8 and 9, and the whole purport of the arguments.

① Not faithfully reviewing the value of the instant appraisal report and the proposal for collateral.

The appraisal of this case is based on the premise that the building plan for the container building, which seems to have been unreasonable in Seoul Triart with respect to the land subject to appraisal, still has been a state of forests and fields, and the written appraisal is closely examined, it would have been able to find out any problem in the defendant's appraisal. However, the central lease did not recognize it.

Despite the fact that the branch office in the Dongdong Bank refused to grant a loan after reviewing the Defendant’s appraisal report, the Central Lease provided a large amount of financing as collateral with the maximum debt amount of 25 billion won which is set to believe only the Defendant’s appraisal of the land subject to appraisal of this case, which is set forth as a senior collateral of KRW 20,875,00,000.

(2) A negligence in examining the financial structure and credit standing of the Seoul Rite

In dealing with lease and sirens, it shall be treated mainly with credit standing rather than collateral [Article 16 of the Rules on the Operation of Facilities Leasing Business, which is prescribed by the Minister of Finance and Economy, based on Article 15 of the former Equipment Rental Business Act (amended by Act No. 5211, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter the same shall apply]; the Central Lease, as of December 31, 1993, is about 134 billion won in total assets of Seoul Liart and over 130 billion won in total assets; the debt ratio is about 30.43% in total assets; the financial structure is extremely weak; the annual sales is about 6.2 billion won in Seoul Liart, which is merely about 6.6 billion won in total (the net profit of 19.9 billion won in each year; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the central lease was concluded with a loan agreement of at least 1.6 billion won in total and over 3 billion won in total assets.

(3) The fact that measures to be taken to secure bonds are not properly taken.

In spite of the knowledge that the Central Lease's employee is registered as the yellow Trade Office, the comprehensive development of filialsan will be the joint guarantor, and the president of the Filisan Group and the representative director of the Seoul Egypt will be appointed as the joint guarantor without any investigation of property.

In addition, approximately 69% of the price for the purchase of the foregoing lease goods and sirens paid to Geumgang Puu, who was the supplier of the leased goods, was used by the comprehensive development of filial acid, and approximately 29% of the price for the purchase of the rental goods was used in Seoul Pu, and about KRW 6% of the amount confirmed as the use by the Geum Pu Pu Pu, who was the supplier of the leased goods, was approximately KRW 1.2 billion. The lease goods and sirens were not newly acquired by the lease contract and the rental contract of this case, but were already installed in the skiing site operated by the Seoul Pu, at the time of the conclusion of the said contract, and the Central Lease was also aware of this.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease contract and the rental contract, a large number of the leased and rental goods were already offered as security for transfer to the Japanese bank, or leased or rental goods owned by another lease company, such as the Hanil Lease Co., Ltd. (Violation of the Rules on Business Operation of Facilities Lending Companies).

After the conclusion of the instant lease contract and the rental contract, the Central Lease Employees confirmed only a part of the said items in examining whether the said lease and the rental goods have been properly supplied and installed.

The non-party 9, who was the chief of the central lease business, was punished by the act of receiving money in return for the provision of financial to Seoul Egypt.

④ The Central Lease, while lending money exceeding KRW 20 billion, poorly assessed the business prospects and feasibility (such as financial circumstances, various kinds of authorizations and permission issues, and stage of business progress) of the Seoul Liber’s construction business plan, and offered the Seoul Liber with a view to raising the performance of lease financing (the criteria for the credit limit, such as the rate of collateral approval, were not set).

C. Sub-decision

The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff 9,713,504,150 won (i.e., 19,427,08,300 won x 50%) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from November 9, 1994, which is the date the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s succeeding intervenor’s succeeding intervenor’s claim is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation, from November 15, 201, until July 15, 2011, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the defendant's appeal is partially accepted and the decision ordering payment in excess of the above recognition amount among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is revoked, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation portion is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) is the amount as seen in the following note 5:

(2) Article 9 (Standards for Appraisal of Individual Land) (1) Where an appraisal business entity separately evaluates land at the request of another person, it shall be determined on the basis of the officially announced value of reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the relevant land.

3) According to the records of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 6-37 of the appraisal report of this case, although the defendant's appraiser non-party 4 was written in the production column of the appraisal report of this case, the investigator non-party 5 and the non-party 6 only visited the site of the land subject to appraisal of this case on July 14, 1999, and the appraisal report of this case was prepared only once a day. In light of the size and characteristics of the land subject to appraisal of this case, even if the appraisal report of this case was prepared during the first half period, it cannot be deemed that the appraisal of this case was made properly after sufficient on-site inspection and collection of necessary materials, etc.

4) Even if the land subject to appraisal is assumed to be considered as having the same value as that of the comparable standard lot (320,000 won per square meter, and 320,000 won per square meter) among the land subject to appraisal, it is evident that the land subject to appraisal exceeds 13.8 billion won (13,82,680,000 won = 50,903,160,000 won - 37,020,480,000 won (=115,689 square meter x 320,000 won)).

5) It is the amount corresponding to the land subject to appraisal of this case out of the maximum debt amount of 26.2 billion won in the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the land of 16 lots of land, including the land subject to appraisal of this case. However, as seen next, even if the legitimate appraisal price of the land subject to appraisal of this case is assessed based on any one of the result not exceeding the maximum debt amount of each of the above appraisal amounts, the result is the same, and thus, there is no practical

6) Although the Defendant contests the adequacy of this amount, as long as there is no reasonable evidence to deem that the reasonable value of the land subject to appraisal of this case exceeds KRW 20,875,00,000, the Defendant’s assertion is not beneficially feasible and should not be determined.