Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Probative Value of Expert Opinion Results and Partial Rejection, Adoption of Contrary Expert Opinion Results, and Calculation of Damages from Restrictions on Use of Fire Safety Facilities
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 14, 2022, 2022Da212273 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an expert opinion contains some errors, or where there are several conflicting expert opinions, how may the court adopt them, and may damages be calculated on the basis of an expert opinion that does not reflect restrictions on the use of fire safety facilities?
Holding
Unless there is a manifest error, such as the method of the expert opinion being contrary to rules of experience or lacking reasonableness, the results of an expert opinion are respected; where there are some errors, only that portion may be rejected; and following one of conflicting expert opinion results or combining them is also lawful insofar as it does not run counter to rules of experience or rules of logic. The Supreme Court held, however, that the court below misapprehended legal principles and failed to exhaust deliberations in calculating damages on the basis of the results of the first-instance expert opinion, which appeared not to reflect the scope of the restriction on use from a normative perspective.
Points at issue, verbatim
감정결과 중 오류가 있는 부분만을 배척하고 나머지 부분에 관한 감정결과를 증거로 채택할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether only the erroneous portions of the appraisal results may be rejected and the appraisal results on the remaining portions adopted as evidence (in principle, affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 예비적 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
Of the portion of the judgment of the court below in which the plaintiff lost, the portion concerning the alternative claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
감정인의 감정결과는 그 감정방법 등이 경험칙에 반하거나 합리성이 없는 등의 현저한 잘못이 없는 한 이를 존중하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
An appraiser's appraisal results must be respected unless there is a manifest error, such as where the method of appraisal contravenes the rules of experience or lacks rationality
Factors
- 감정인의 감정결과의 증명력
- 감정결과 중 오류가 있는 부분만을 배척하고
- 나머지 부분에 관한 감정결과를 증거로 채택할 수 있는지 여부
- 상반되는 수 개의 감정결과 중 어느 하나에 의거하여 사실을 인정하거나
- 이를 종합하여 사실을 인정하는 것이 적법한지 여부
Unofficial English translation
• The probative value of an appraiser's appraisal results
• Only the erroneous portions of the appraisal results may be rejected and
• Whether the appraisal results on the remaining portions may be adopted as evidence
• Whether it is lawful to find facts based on any one of several conflicting appraisal results, or
• To find facts by combining them
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 7. 9. 선고 2006다67602, 67619 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67619 decided July 9, 2009
Decisions referred to
대법원 1999. 7. 13. 선고 97다57979 판결(공1998하, 1609), 대법원 2009. 7. 9. 선고 2006다67602, 67619 판결, 대법원 2012. 1. 12. 선고 2009다84608, 84615, 84622, 84639 판결(공2012상, 233), 대법원 2018. 10. 4. 선고 2015다49675 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the restriction on use arising from the installation of fire safety facilities extends to the use and manner of use of the entire real property, by what method of expert opinion must the amount of such damages be calculated?
This reading will be re-examined if the operation of free evaluation of evidence under Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act or the provisions on restrictions on use in the statutes and regulations relating to safety management of multi-use establishments are changed.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
As a result of comparison with an independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the fourth axis (Form of the test) and the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The first reading can be seen as placing weight on the concrete application that led to the partial reversal and remand, while the independent reading placed weight on the conditions for the permissibility in principle of adopting expert opinion results stated in the Holdings.
감정결과 중 오류가 있는 부분만을 배척하고 나머지 부분에 관한 감정결과를 증거로 채택할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the restriction on use arising from the installation of fire safety facilities extends to the use and manner of use of the entire real property, by what method of expert opinion must the amount of such damages be calculated?” vs Independent “What are the time of occurrence of the damage appropriately reflecting the non-installation of the emergency exit and the restrictions on use arising from the fire safety facilities, and the specific amount of compensation?”
The first reading asks about the method of expert opinion for the damages arising from the restriction on use, while the independent reading asks about the time of occurrence of the damage and the specific amount of compensation.
감정결과 중 오류가 있는 부분만을 배척하고 나머지 부분에 관한 감정결과를 증거로 채택할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below held that it cannot be found that the real property could not be leased to third parties because no emergency exit was installed, and dismissed the claim for damages for the entire period during which the property was not leased; it calculated the damages arising from restrictions on use caused by the installation of the emergency exit and the A/V valve box by adopting the results of the first-instance expert opinion; and as to the emergency stairway passage, it denied the very existence of a restriction on use and, in the alternative, held in effect that the plaintiff had been aware of and tolerated this from the time of acquiring ownership.
Supreme Court standard: While confirming the existing legal principles concerning respect for expert opinion results, partial rejection, and the selection or combination of conflicting expert opinion results, the Supreme Court viewed as erroneous the calculation of damages on the basis of expert opinion results that appeared not to reflect the normative perspective that a restriction on use may affect not each portion but the entire real property. It reversed and remanded the portion of the alternative claim, directing that the time of occurrence and the scope of the damage having adequate causation with the non-installation of the emergency exit, the restriction on use of the emergency stairway passage, and whether the plaintiff was aware of it be examined again, and dismissed the defendant's final appeal on the ground that it merely disputes the finding of facts and the assessment of evidence.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where, because of errors in part of the expert opinion results, the expert opinion results on the matter referred for expert opinion have become entirely mutually contradictory or extremely unclear
- Where the method of the expert opinion itself involves a manifest error, such as being contrary to rules of experience or lacking reasonableness
- Cases in which the use of the building is not subject to statutory restrictions, so that the evaluation of restrictions on use from a normative perspective does not become an issue in calculating damages
Record verification notes
Before asserting the lawfulness of the adoption of expert opinion results, one must first check whether that expert opinion actually evaluated and reflected the scope and degree of restrictions on use from a normative perspective, such as statutory restrictions on use and the duty to guarantee access, and whether the selection between conflicting expert opinion results does not run counter to rules of experience or rules of logic.
From the official text
Points at issue
감정인의 감정결과의 증명력 및 감정결과 중 오류가 있는 부분만을 배척하고 나머지 부분에 관한 감정결과를 증거로 채택할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 상반되는 수 개의 감정결과 중 어느 하나에 의거하여 사실을 인정하거나, 이를 종합하여 사실을 인정하는 것이 적법한지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
The probative value of an appraiser's appraisal results and whether only the erroneous portions of the appraisal results may be rejected and the appraisal results on the remaining portions adopted as evidence (in principle, affirmative) / Whether it is lawful to find facts based on any one of several conflicting appraisal results, or to find facts by combining them (in principle, affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결의 원고 패소 부분 중 예비적 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 피고의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
Of the portion of the judgment of the court below in which the plaintiff lost, the portion concerning the alternative claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
민사소송법 제202조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger