Building price valuation system and program used therefor

Abstract

We provide a building price evaluation system and program that can appropriately reflect building condition surveys and renovation status surveys, enabling more accurate and realistic evaluations. [Solution] A system that calculates the remaining useful life (F), and calculates the housing valuation amount (J) by multiplying the replacement cost (H) by the residual value rate (G) obtained by dividing the remaining useful life (F) by the expected useful life (A), and the building area (I), comprises an input unit into which information including building basic information such as the year of construction (B), the construction date and building area (I), building condition survey information, and renovation status survey information is input; a database unit into which data including the expected useful life (A), a correction coefficient (C) based on the building condition survey information, information related to the part average (D) based on information for each component, and the replacement cost (H) is stored; a processor unit that calculates the remaining useful life (F), the residual value rate (G), and the housing valuation amount (J); and an output unit that outputs them.

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a building price evaluation system and a program used therefor, which calculates the remaining useful life (F) of a building to be evaluated, uses the replacement cost (H), which is the assumed price of a building equivalent to the building to be evaluated if it were newly constructed at the time of evaluation, as the base price, and calculates the residential value (J) by multiplying the replacement cost (H) by the residual value rate (G), which is the ratio obtained by dividing the remaining useful life (F) by the expected useful life (A), which is evaluated according to standards including seismic performance for each construction date, and the building area (I). [Background technology]

[0002] A conventional real estate purchase price system has been proposed which includes a sales case storage unit that stores past real estate sales cases according to the requirements of the real estate, a renovation case storage unit that stores past renovation cost cases according to the requirements of the real estate to be renovated, an extraction unit that extracts the purchase requirements and renovation requirements of the target real estate to be purchased, and a purchase price acquisition means that obtains the purchase price of the target real estate from the basic sales price of the target real estate obtained from the real estate sales cases using the purchase requirements of the target real estate and the renovation cost of the target real estate obtained from the renovation cost cases using the renovation requirements of the target real estate, wherein the renovation requirements of the target real estate include exterior finishing and equipment, and the extraction of the renovation requirements by the extraction unit is performed using only information such as the age of the building, which is the purchase requirement of the target real estate (see Patent Document 1).

[0003] An example of a conventional program for calculating an index related to the price of used apartment buildings is a program for operating a computer equipped with a processor, the program causing the processor to perform the following steps: a first step of receiving input from a price list of used apartment buildings at the time of construction for which a floor-by-floor and location-based index should be calculated; a second step of calculating a first floor-by-floor and location-based index of the used apartment buildings at the time of construction from the price list of the time of construction; a third step of receiving input from two or more individual unit prices of the used apartment buildings; a fourth step of calculating two or more second floor-by-floor and location-based indices for individual units of the used apartment buildings from the individual unit prices of two or more units of the used apartment buildings; a fifth step of calculating a correlation coefficient between the second floor-by-floor and location-based index and the first floor-by-floor and location-based index corresponding to the second floor-by-floor and location-based index; and a sixth step of calculating a third floor-by-floor and location-based index for any individual unit of the used apartment buildings based on the correlation coefficient, wherein the price list of used apartment buildings at the time of construction includes the floor number and orientation of the individual unit of the used apartment building. A proposal has been made that includes information related to this (see Patent Document 2).

[0004] A conventional real estate purchase decision system includes a memory unit that stores criteria for whether or not to purchase real estate for each appraisal requirement, and a processor. The processor extracts the requirements of the real estate for which an appraisal has been requested, and from among the extracted requirements, it determines whether or not the criteria for the appraisal requirement stored in the memory unit are met for each appraisal requirement. Based on this determination, it determines whether or not the real estate is eligible for purchase, and the criteria are set based on past real estate transaction cases (see Patent Document 3). [Prior art documents] [Patent Documents]

[0005] [Patent Document 1] Patent No. 7700336 (Claim 1) [Patent Document 2] Patent No. 7667979 (Claim 1) [Patent Document 3] Japanese Patent Publication No. 7622289 (Claim 1)

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0006] Regarding the building price evaluation system and the program used therefor, the problem to be solved is that in the existing building circulation market, detached houses uniformly depreciate over time, and there is a practice that the market value becomes zero after about 20 to 25 years of construction. Also, taking the prior art documents described in the background art section as examples, Patent Document 1 obtains the purchase price of the target real estate from past real estate transaction cases and renovation cost cases, Patent Document 2 calculates the correlation coefficient between the new construction of an apartment building and the index by floor and location for used buildings, and calculates the index by floor and location for each household arbitrarily, and Patent Document 3 makes a real estate purchase judgment based on past real estate transaction cases. All of them are evaluated by comparison based on past transaction cases, and do not rely on information such as the building condition survey of the building to be evaluated through on-site investigation, and cannot calculate an evaluation amount that conforms to the actual situation of the building to be evaluated.

[0007] Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide a building price evaluation system and a program used therefor that can appropriately reflect a building condition survey and a renovation condition survey while using the inherent performance difference at the time of new construction as a reference for the evaluation amount of the building to be evaluated, and perform an evaluation that conforms more closely to the actual situation.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0008] The present invention has the following configuration to achieve the above object. According to one example of a building price valuation system according to the present invention, the system calculates the remaining useful life (F) of the building to be valued, uses the replacement cost (H), which is the assumed price of a building equivalent to the building to be valued if it were newly constructed at the time of valuation, as the base price, and calculates the housing valuation amount (J) by multiplying the replacement cost (H) by the residual value rate (G), which is the ratio obtained by dividing the remaining useful life (F) by the expected useful life (A), which is evaluated according to standards including seismic performance for each construction date, and the building area (I), and includes an input unit into which information relating to the building to be valued is input, including building basic information including the construction date (B) and the construction date and building area (I) to specify the year of application of building standards, building condition survey information, and renovation status survey information according to the status of equipment updates and maintenance, including renovations, and the expected useful life (A), which is set to be selected according to the construction date, and a correction coefficient (C), which is set to be selected based on the building condition survey information, The system is characterized by comprising: a database unit that stores data that includes information set to calculate a part average (D), which is a correction coefficient identified based on the renovation status survey information obtained for each component of the building to be evaluated, and the replacement cost (H), which is set to be selected according to the construction date, and the data identified by the information input by the input unit; a processor unit that calculates the remaining useful life (F) using calculation elements including the expected useful life (A), the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), and the part average (D), calculates the residual value rate (G) using calculation elements including the remaining useful life (F) and the expected useful life (A), and calculates the housing valuation amount (J) using calculation elements including the replacement cost (H), the residual value rate (G), and the building area (I); and an output unit that outputs the remaining useful life (F), the residual value rate (G), and the housing valuation amount (J).

[0009] Furthermore, according to one example of the building price valuation system according to the present invention, the remaining useful life (F) is characterized in that the upper limit is a value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A) and adding the additional useful life calculated by multiplying the expected useful life (A), the correction coefficient (C), and the part average (D).

[0010] Furthermore, according to one example of the building price valuation system according to the present invention, the remaining useful life (F) is characterized in that the lower limit is the value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life calculated by multiplying the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), and the part average (D).

[0011] Furthermore, according to one example of the building price evaluation system according to the present invention, the building to be evaluated is an apartment building, the information input to the input unit includes apartment building management status survey information, the information stored in the database unit includes a management score (E), which is an evaluation score set to be selected by the apartment building management status survey information, and the management score (E) is included as a calculation element of the remaining useful life (F) calculated by the processor unit.

[0012] Furthermore, according to one example of the building price valuation system according to the present invention, the remaining useful life (F) is characterized in that the upper limit is a value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A) and adding the additional useful life calculated by multiplying the expected useful life (A), the correction coefficient (C), the average of the parts (D), and the management score (E).

[0013] Furthermore, according to one example of the building price valuation system according to the present invention, the lower limit is a value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life calculated by multiplying the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), the average of the parts (D), and the management score (E).

[0014] Also, according to one exemplary embodiment of the building price evaluation system according to the present invention, the correction coefficient (C) specified based on the building condition survey information is set so that a value between 0 and 1 is selected and stored in the database unit. By inputting the presence or absence of a building condition survey in the building to be evaluated or the number of deterioration events in the result of the building condition survey, it can be characterized in that it is specified in correspondence with the resilience status of the building to be evaluated with respect to the expected service life (A) given for each construction year of the building to be evaluated.

[0015] Also, according to one exemplary embodiment of the building price evaluation system according to the present invention, the part average (D) is the price ratio of each component part including the foundation and the building frame, roofing materials, exterior wall materials, fittings, interior finishes, kitchens, bathrooms, washrooms, toilets, water supply / drainage and hot water supply facilities to the entire building, and is set so that the total of all is 100% as a percentage. The part-by-part price composition ratio (x n ), and the part-by-part expected service life (a n ) set for each component part, which are stored in the database unit, and the information input to the input unit based on the renovation condition survey information. For each component part, from the part-by-part expected service life (a n ), subtract the part-by-part elapsed years (b n ), which is the physical or deemed elapsed years from the time of renewal of the corresponding part, and then divide by the part-by-part expected service life (a n ) to calculate the part-by-part remaining residual value ratio (y n ). Multiply the part-by-part price composition ratio (x n ) by the part-by-part remaining residual value ratio (y n ) to calculate the part-by-part remaining residual value composition ratio (z n ), and it can be characterized in that it is calculated by summing up the part-by-part remaining residual value composition ratios (z n ) of all component parts.

[0016] Furthermore, according to one example of the building price evaluation system according to the present invention, when the building to be evaluated is a multi-unit dwelling, the management score (E) is characterized in that it is identified based on the multi-unit dwelling management status survey information which includes at least one piece of information from the following: the certification of the condominium management plan, the operational status of the management association, the provisions of the management regulations, the adequacy of management fees and repair reserve funds, and the implementation status of repair and improvement work.

[0017] Furthermore, according to one embodiment of the building price evaluation system of the present invention, the replacement cost (H) is characterized by being corrected by a quality rate correction coefficient, which is a correction coefficient that includes evaluation values ​​related to the seismic performance and energy-saving performance of the building to be evaluated as calculation elements. Furthermore, according to one example of the building price valuation system of the present invention, the residential valuation amount (J) can be corrected by an intrinsic value correction coefficient, which is set as a correction coefficient with an evaluation value related to intrinsic value, including historical value, design value, and cultural value, which are unique value elements that each building to be valued possesses individually.

[0018] Furthermore, according to one example of a program used in the building price valuation system of the present invention, it is characterized by being a program that executes the operation steps of the input unit, the database unit, the processor unit, and the output unit in the aforementioned building price valuation system. [Effects of the Invention]

[0019] The building price valuation system and program used therein according to the present invention have a particularly advantageous effect in that, while using the inherent performance differences at the time of new construction as a basis, the valuation amount of the building to be evaluated appropriately reflects the results of building condition surveys and renovation condition surveys, thereby enabling a more accurate valuation. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0020] [Figure 1] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of the form of the building price evaluation system according to the present invention. [Figure 2]This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a database of expected service life (A) according to the present invention. [Figure 3] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a database of correction coefficients (C) obtained from building condition surveys according to the present invention. [Figure 4] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a checklist of deterioration events that serves as the basis for the correction coefficient (C) in the building condition survey according to the present invention. [Figure 5] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a database of part averages (D) related to the renovation status survey according to the present invention. [Figure 6] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a checklist for the number of years elapsed for each part of a renovation status survey according to the present invention. [Figure 7] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a database of management scores (E) obtained from a survey of the management status of apartment buildings according to the present invention. [Figure 8] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a replacement cost (H) database according to the present invention. [Figure 9] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a quality ratio correction coefficient related to seismic performance standards, which is one of the calculation elements for replacement cost (H) according to the present invention. [Figure 10] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a quality ratio correction coefficient related to the grade of primary energy consumption, which is one of the calculation elements for replacement cost (H) according to the present invention. [Figure 11] This is an explanatory diagram showing an example of a quality ratio correction coefficient related to the standards for thermal insulation performance grades of detached houses, which is one of the calculation elements for replacement cost (H) according to the present invention. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0021] The following describes in detail, based on the attached drawings (Figures 1-7), examples of the building price evaluation system and the program used therein according to the present invention.

[0022] The basic configuration of the building price valuation system according to the present invention is as follows: calculate the remaining useful life (F) of the building to be valued, use the replacement cost (H), which is the assumed price of a building equivalent to the building to be valued if it were newly constructed at the time of valuation, as the base price, and calculate the housing valuation amount (J) by multiplying the replacement cost (H) by the residual value rate (G), which is the ratio obtained by dividing the remaining useful life (F) by the expected useful life (A), which is evaluated according to standards including seismic performance for each construction date, and the building area (I). As shown in Figure 1, the system comprises an input unit 10, a database unit 20, a processor unit 30, and an output unit 40, making it a computer system that is capable of performing building price valuation.

[0023] Here, the expected useful life (A) is determined by evaluating and setting standards that include the seismic performance of the building under evaluation for each construction date, for example. This allows for a more realistic setting of the value of the building under evaluation compared to, for example, the depreciation period of the building under evaluation. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, it can be set based on the seismic standards (seismic performance) stipulated in the Building Standards Act. For buildings constructed before May 1981 (non-seismic), the expected useful life (A) can be 30 years; for buildings constructed from June 1981 onwards (seismic), it can be 40 years; for buildings constructed from June 2000 onwards (seismic), it can be 50 years; and for buildings constructed from April 2025 onwards (seismic), it can be 60 years.

[0024] It should be noted that the method for setting the expected useful life (A) is not limited to one based on seismic performance, as in this example. Other setting elements can be selectively added as appropriate, such as durability to be considered for each type of building (e.g., reinforced concrete, steel frame, wood, or hybrid types), and durability to be considered depending on the environmental conditions and usage of the construction site.

[0025] The input unit 10 in this example configuration is a part into which information relating to the building to be evaluated is entered, including building basic information such as the year of construction (B) and the construction date and building area (I) to specify the year in which the building standards apply, building condition survey information, and renovation status survey information according to the status of equipment updates and maintenance, including renovations. It should be noted that the information entered into this input unit 10 is not limited to the information of the above example configuration and related information, and further information may be entered.

[0026] The database unit 20 of this embodiment is a part that stores data including the expected useful life (A) set to be selected according to the construction date, a correction coefficient (C) set to be selected based on building condition survey information, information set to calculate the part average (D), which is a correction coefficient identified based on the renovation condition survey information obtained for each component of the building to be evaluated, and the replacement cost (H) set to be selected according to the construction date. The database unit 20 is a part that stores data identified (extracted) by the information entered by the input unit.

[0027] The processor unit 30 in this embodiment calculates the remaining useful life (F) using calculation elements including the expected useful life (A), the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), and the part average (D), calculates the residual value rate (G) using calculation elements including the remaining useful life (F) and the expected useful life (A), and calculates the housing valuation amount (J) using calculation elements including the replacement cost (H), the residual value rate (G), and the building area (I).

[0028] Furthermore, the output unit 40 in this embodiment is a part that outputs the remaining useful life (F), the remaining residual value rate (G), and the housing valuation amount (J). In other words, the output unit 40 outputs the data calculated by the processor unit 30, and this output data can be displayed on a display, printed by a printer, etc., and stored in a memory device.

[0029] According to this building price evaluation system of the present invention, while using the inherent performance differences at the time of new construction as a basis, the evaluation amount of the building to be evaluated appropriately reflects the results of building condition surveys and renovation status surveys, and derives an additional useful life, thereby providing a particularly advantageous effect of being able to perform an evaluation that is closer to reality.

[0030] In other words, this building valuation system uses the expected useful life, which is set as the actual useful life different from the depreciation period of the building being valued, as a basis. By using a correction coefficient (C) based on a building condition survey and a component average (D) (a correction coefficient obtained from a renovation status survey that reflects the status of equipment updates and maintenance, including renovations) as calculation elements, it is possible to calculate the remaining useful life (F) with an additional useful life added, thereby enabling a more accurate valuation of the building being valued.

[0031] Furthermore, in the building price valuation system relating to this example, the remaining useful life (F) can be set to an upper limit of the value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life {A × C × D} which is calculated by multiplying the expected useful life (A), the correction coefficient (C), and the average of the parts (D).

[0032] In this case, the additional useful life {A × C × D} is calculated based on the expected useful life (A). Therefore, if the building being evaluated is well-maintained, the calculated remaining useful life (F) may exceed the expected useful life (A). In such cases, the upper limit of the remaining useful life (F) may be set to, for example, the expected useful life (A) as the maximum. This allows for an appropriate reflection of building condition surveys and renovation status surveys, enabling a more accurate valuation of the building being evaluated.

[0033] Furthermore, in the building price valuation system according to this example, the remaining useful life (F) can be set as a lower limit to the value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life {B × C × D} which is calculated by multiplying the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), and the average of the building parts (D).

[0034] In this case, the additional useful life {B × C × D} is calculated based on the age of the building (B), so even if the building being evaluated is well-maintained, the remaining useful life (F) will not exceed the expected useful life (A). This allows for an appropriate reflection of building condition surveys and renovation status surveys, enabling a more accurate valuation of the building being evaluated.

[0035] As described above, by calculating the upper and lower limits for the remaining useful life (F), the median can be obtained based on these upper and lower limits. The median of the remaining useful life (F) thus calculated and identified serves as one basis (criterion) for determining the assessed value of the house (J), and has the advantage of being suitably used as a well-founded numerical value that incorporates various factors in actual commercial transactions of the building being assessed.

[0036] Furthermore, in the building price valuation system according to the example of this configuration shown in Figure 1, the building to be valued is an apartment building, the information input to the input unit includes apartment building management status survey information, the information stored in the database unit includes a management score (E), which is a value set to be selected by the apartment building management status survey information, and the management score (E) is included as a calculation element of the remaining useful life (F) calculated by the processor unit.

[0037] According to this, the valuation of the buildings subject to evaluation as apartment buildings will appropriately reflect the results of building condition surveys, renovation status surveys, and apartment building management status surveys, resulting in a particularly advantageous effect of conducting valuations that are closer to the actual situation and based on future predictions. In other words, by accumulating information based on actual surveys and conducting valuations based on more accurate evidence, the reliability of the valuation can be increased.

[0038] Furthermore, in the case of an example of a building subject to evaluation in this apartment complex, the remaining useful life (F) can be set to an upper limit of the value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life {A × C × D × E} which is calculated by multiplying the expected useful life (A), the correction coefficient (C), the average of the parts (D), and the management score (E). This allows for appropriate reflection of building condition surveys and renovation status surveys, enabling a more accurate valuation of the building subject to evaluation in the apartment complex, as well as a valuation based on future predictions.

[0039] Furthermore, in the case of an example of a building subject to evaluation in this apartment complex, the remaining useful life (F) can be set as a lower limit to the value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life {B × C × D × E} which is calculated by multiplying the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), the average of the building components (D), and the management score (E). This allows for appropriate reflection of building condition surveys and renovation status surveys, enabling a more accurate valuation of the building subject to evaluation in the apartment complex, as well as a valuation based on future predictions.

[0040] As described above, by calculating the upper and lower limits for the remaining useful life (F) of the building being evaluated as an apartment complex, the median can be obtained based on these upper and lower limits. The median of the remaining useful life (F) thus calculated and identified serves as one basis (criterion) for determining the residential property value (J), and has the advantage of being suitably used as a well-founded numerical value that incorporates various factors in actual commercial transactions of the building being evaluated.

[0041] As shown in Figure 3, in this embodiment, the correction coefficient (C) identified based on the building condition survey information is set to select a value between 0 and 1 and stored in the database unit. By inputting whether or not a building condition survey was conducted on the building to be evaluated, or the number of deterioration events in the results of the building condition survey, the correction coefficient can be identified in relation to the resilience status of the building to be evaluated relative to the expected useful life (A) given for each construction date of the building to be evaluated.

[0042] Here, the number of deterioration events in the building condition survey results is counted, for example, using the checklist shown in Figure 4 (according to the "Summary of Building Condition Survey Results" as indicated in "Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Notification No. 82 of 2017, Standards for Existing Housing Condition Survey Methods"), and the correction coefficient (C) is determined by the number of deterioration events. This allows for an appropriate reflection of the building condition survey results and enables a more accurate valuation of the building being evaluated.

[0043] Furthermore, as shown in Figures 5 and 6, in this embodiment, the part average (D) is the price ratio of each component to the total building, including the foundation and structure, roofing materials, exterior wall materials, joinery, interior finishes, kitchen, bathroom / washroom / toilet, water supply / drainage / hot water supply equipment, and lighting / electrical equipment, and is set so that when all are added together, they equal 100% (x n ) and the expected service life for each component set for each component (a n The data stored in the database unit, including the data and the information entered into the input unit by the renovation status survey information, determines the expected useful life for each component (a n ) from the number of years elapsed per part, which is the physical or deemed number of years elapsed since the replacement of the corresponding part (b n Subtracting the above expected useful life for each part (a n By dividing by ), the residual value rate for each component part (y n ) is calculated, and the price composition ratio by part (x n ) with the residual value rate for each part (yn By multiplying by (z), the residual value composition ratio by part (z n ) is calculated, and the residual value composition ratio (z) for each component is calculated for all components. n It can be calculated by adding up the values.

[0044] According to this, the results of the aforementioned renovation status survey information can be appropriately reflected, making it possible to selectively evaluate renovations that contribute to extending the lifespan of the buildings being evaluated, and allowing for a correct assessment of the resale value resulting from the renovations, thereby increasing the reliability of the evaluation.

[0045] Furthermore, as shown in Figure 7, in this example, if the building to be evaluated is a multi-unit dwelling, the management score (E) can be determined based on the multi-unit dwelling management status survey information, which includes at least one piece of information from the following: condominium management plan certification, management association operation status, management regulations, adequacy of management fees and repair reserve funds, and implementation status of repair and improvement work.

[0046] According to this method, when the building being evaluated is an apartment building, the results of the apartment building management status survey can be appropriately reflected, making it possible to perform a building valuation based on future predictions and thereby increasing the reliability of the valuation.

[0047] Furthermore, the replacement cost (H) may be characterized by being corrected by a quality rate correction coefficient, which is a correction coefficient that includes the evaluation values ​​related to the seismic performance and energy-saving performance of the building being evaluated as calculation elements.

[0048] According to this method, the replacement cost (H) is not simply set as the estimated price of constructing a building equivalent to the building being evaluated at the time of evaluation, but also allows for an appropriate evaluation of the added value of the building being evaluated in terms of seismic performance and energy efficiency, thereby enabling the calculation of a more realistic housing valuation (J).

[0049] Furthermore, the contents of the building price valuation system according to the present invention, as described above, also extend to the program that executes the operation steps of the input unit 10, the database unit 20, the processor unit 30, and the output unit 40.

[0050] Next, we will provide specific examples of numerical values ​​(A, B, C, D, E, H) for concrete implementations, and then explain examples of the remaining useful life (F), residual value rate (G), and housing valuation (J) calculated based on these numerical values.

[0051] First, the expected useful life A is evaluated by standards that include seismic performance for each construction date. As mentioned above, it can be set based on the seismic standards (seismic performance) stipulated in the Building Standards Act. For example, it can be set as follows: Expected useful life (A): 30 years for buildings constructed before May 1981 (non-seismic), 40 years for buildings constructed from June 1981 onwards (seismic), 50 years for buildings constructed from June 2000 onwards (seismic), and 60 years for buildings constructed from April 2025 onwards (seismic) (see Figure 2).

[0052] The building age (B) is a value that is inevitably determined by entering the construction date as part of the building's basic information.

[0053] The correction factor (C), which is set to be selected based on the building condition survey information, can be set as follows, for example, as shown in Figure 3: correction factor (C): 0.8 if there are no deterioration events, correction factor (C): 0.6 if there is one deterioration event, correction factor (C): 0.4 if there are two deterioration events, correction factor (C): 0.2 if there are three deterioration events, and correction factor (C): 0 if there are four or more deterioration events or if no survey was conducted. This allows for the results of the building condition survey to be appropriately reflected, and ultimately, a more accurate housing valuation (J) can be calculated.

[0054] The building condition survey, which serves as the basis for setting the correction coefficient (C) in this way, involves, for example, investigating the presence or absence of deterioration phenomena in each part, and can be based on the "Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Notification No. 82 of 2017: Standards for Existing Housing Condition Surveys." In this building condition survey, as shown in the checklist in Figure 4, deterioration phenomena are evaluated as "present," "absent," or "could not be investigated." The parts to be investigated include, as parts related to the main structural load-bearing parts, the foundation, base and floor framing, floors, columns and beams, exterior walls and eaves, balconies, interior walls, ceilings, roof trusses, and others (termite damage, decay / corrosion, reinforcement inspection, concrete compressive strength). In addition, parts related to preventing rainwater intrusion can include exterior walls, eaves, balconies, interior walls, ceilings, roof trusses, and roofs.

[0055] Next, based on Figures 5 and 6, we will explain an example of the part average (D), which is a correction coefficient identified based on the renovation status survey information obtained for each component of the building being evaluated.

[0056] Price breakdown by part (x n The percentages are the proportions of the total building price for each component, including the foundation and structure, roofing materials, exterior wall materials, joinery (exterior and interior), interior finishes, kitchen, bathroom / washroom / toilet, water supply and drainage / hot water supply equipment, and lighting / electrical equipment, and are set so that when all are added together, they equal 100%.

[0057] This price breakdown by part (x n As shown in the example in Figure 5, the contribution rate of each part to the total price of the building being evaluated can be set as follows: for example, foundation and frame x1: 23.0%, roofing material x2: 6.0%, exterior wall material x3: 9.0%, joinery (exterior and interior) x4: 17.0%, interior finishes x5: 18.0%, kitchen x6: 8.0%, bathroom, washroom, and toilet x7: 7.0%, water supply and drainage and hot water supply equipment x8: 7.0%, and lighting and electrical equipment x9: 5.0%.

[0058] Also, the expected useful life of each part a nAs shown in the example in Figure 5, the service life of each part can be evaluated in accordance with the actual situation and set as follows: for example, foundation and frame a1: 60 years, roofing material a2: 30 years, exterior wall material a3: 30 years, joinery (exterior and interior) a4: 30 years, interior finish a5: 30 years, kitchen a6: 20 years, bathroom, washroom, and toilet a7: 20 years, water supply and drainage and hot water supply equipment a8: 20 years, and lighting and electrical equipment a9: 20 years.

[0059] Number of years elapsed by body part (b n The number of years elapsed is determined by the input of data related to the renewal (renovation implementation date) of each part, or it is a value that can be reasonably identified as the estimated number of years elapsed based on the subjective evaluation of the person conducting the survey.

[0060] This number of years elapsed by body part (b n As a specific example, as shown in the example checklist in Figure 6, the following can be identified: foundation and structure b1: 10 years, roofing materials b2: 10 years, exterior wall materials b3: 10 years, joinery (exterior and interior) b4: 7.5 years (deemed elapsed years: 30 years × 0.25 (deemed coefficient) = 7.5 years), interior finishes b5: 7.5 years (deemed elapsed years: 30 years × 0.25 (deemed coefficient) = 7.5 years), kitchen b6: 10 years, bathroom, washroom, and toilet b7: 10 years, water supply and drainage and hot water supply equipment b8: 5 years, and lighting and electrical equipment b9: 5 years (deemed elapsed years: 20 years × 0.25 (deemed coefficient) = 5 years).

[0061] The expected useful life of each part identified above (a n ) and the number of years elapsed by body part (b n ) by part-specific residual value rate (y n The processor unit 30 calculates the expected service life (a) for each component. n ) from the number of years elapsed per part, which is the physical or deemed number of years elapsed since the replacement of the corresponding part (b n Subtracting the above expected useful life for each part (a n By dividing by ), the residual value rate for each component part (y n Calculate ).

[0062] Specifically, the values ​​in the above example are used for the residual value rate by part (y n ) = (Expected service life by part (a n )-Number of years elapsed by body part (b n )) / Expected service life by part (a n Substituting these values ​​into the equation, we can determine the following: foundation and frame y1=(60-10) / 60, roofing material y2=(30-10) / 30, exterior wall material y3=(30-10) / 30, joinery (exterior and interior) y4=(30-7.5) / 30, interior finish y5=(30-7.5) / 30, kitchen y6=(20-10) / 20, bathroom, washroom, and toilet y7=(20-10) / 20, water supply and drainage and hot water supply equipment y8=(20-10) / 20, and lighting and electrical equipment y9=(20-5) / 20.

[0063] Next, the price breakdown by part (x n ) with residual value rates by part (y n By multiplying by (z), the residual value composition ratio by part (z n ) is calculated. Specifically, the values ​​in the example above are used to calculate the residual value composition ratio by part (z n ) = Price composition ratio by part (x n ) × residual value rate by part (y n Substituting these values, we get: Foundation and frame z1 = 23 / 100 × (60-10) / 60 = 0.19, roofing material z2 = 6 / 100 × (30-10) / 30 = 0.03, exterior wall material z3 = 9 / 100 × (30-10) / 30 = 0.05, joinery (exterior and interior) z4 = 17 / 100 × (30-7.5) / 30 = 0.12, interior finish z5 = 18 / 100 × (30 The following can be identified: -7.5) / 30=0.13, kitchen z6=8 / 100×(20-10) / 20=0.04, bathroom / washroom / toilet z7=7 / 100×(20-10) / 20=0.03, water supply / drainage / hot water supply equipment z8=7 / 100×(20-10) / 20=0.03, and lighting / electrical equipment z9=5 / 100×(20-5) / 20=0.03.

[0064] And the residual value composition ratio by component for all component parts (z n The body part average (D) is calculated by summing up the values ​​from the above example. Specifically, substituting the values ​​from the above example, the body part average (D) = Σz n=z1+z2+z3+z4+z5+z6+z7+z8+z9=0.19+0.03+0.05+0.12+0.13+0.04+0.03+0.03+0.03=0.65, which can be determined.

[0065] Furthermore, in the case where the building being evaluated is a multi-unit dwelling, the evaluation method can be set so that the aforementioned management score (E) is determined based on the aforementioned multi-unit dwelling management status survey information, which includes at least one piece of information from the following: the certification of the condominium management plan, the operational status of the management association, the provisions of the management regulations, the adequacy of management fees and repair reserve funds, and the implementation status of repair and improvement work.

[0066] As an example of specific numerical values ​​(points) for the management score (E), as shown in Figure 7, first, as a criterion for judging a single item (Route A), the provision of the condominium management certification plan can be set as 1.2. In addition, as a criterion for judging the sum of multiple items (Route B), the management association's operational status can be set as 0.2, the provisions of the management regulations as 0.2, the adequacy of management fees and repair reserve funds as 0.4, and the implementation status of repair and improvement work as 0.2. In this case, the maximum value (points) when the scores are added together is set to be 1.

[0067] In this example, as shown in Figure 7, points are added using either route A or B, and if there are points from route A, scoring by route B is not performed. This management score (E) is one coefficient for calculating the additional useful life {B × C × D × E}, and when the building being evaluated is an apartment building, it can appropriately reflect the results of the apartment building management status survey information and enable a more future-based valuation of the building being evaluated.

[0068] The replacement cost (H) is the estimated price of constructing a building equivalent to the building being evaluated at the time of evaluation. For example, data from the "Standard Building Construction Cost Table" shown in Figure 8 can be used. This table in Figure 8 is based on the "Building Construction Start Statistics (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism)" table, which is calculated by 1m 2This is calculated as the estimated construction cost per unit (estimated construction cost ÷ total floor area), and this can be appropriately used as a reference value for the replacement cost (H), which is a calculation element of the example form according to the present invention.

[0069] This replacement cost (H) may be corrected using a quality ratio correction coefficient (h) as a correction factor that includes the evaluation values ​​related to the seismic performance and energy-saving performance of the building being evaluated as calculation elements. Below, based on Figures 9 to 11, an example of how to specify the quality ratio correction coefficient (h) related to this replacement cost (H) will be explained, using one standard related to seismic performance and two standards related to energy-saving performance (in the example shown below, standards based on primary energy consumption and thermal insulation performance grade).

[0070] The standards for seismic performance are based on the Building Standards Act. For example, as shown in Figure 9, if the minimum value of the superstructure score is 1.5 or higher, it is evaluated as "will not collapse. It is considered to have 1.5 times the seismic strength of the current Building Standards Act," and the seismic performance ratio correction coefficient (h1) is set to 1.5. Below that, if the minimum value of the superstructure score is between 1 and 1.5, it is evaluated as "will not collapse for the time being," and (h1) is set to 1.2. If the minimum value of the superstructure score is 1, it is evaluated as "is considered to have the minimum seismic strength stipulated in the Building Standards Act," and (h1) is set to 1. If the minimum value of the superstructure score is between 0.7 and less than 1, it is evaluated as "there is a possibility of collapse," and (h1) is set to 0.8. If the minimum value of the superstructure score is less than 0.7, it is evaluated as "there is a high possibility of collapse," and (h1) is set to 0.5.

[0071] The standards related to primary energy consumption among the energy-saving performance standards are based on the Building Energy Conservation Act. For example, as shown in Figure 10, for Grade 6, if the BEI (an index for evaluating the energy efficiency of buildings) is 0.8 or less, the primary energy consumption equality rate correction coefficient (h2) is set to 1.5. Subsequently, for Grade 5, if the BEI is 0.9 or less, (h2) is set to 1.3; for Grade 4, if the BEI is 1.0 or less, (h2) is set to 1.1; for Grade 3 (existing buildings only), if the BEI is 1.1 or less, (h2) is set to 1; and for Grade 2 or lower or if there is no performance information, (h2) is set to 1.

[0072] Furthermore, the standards related to energy-saving performance, specifically those related to thermal insulation performance grades, are based on the Building Energy Conservation Act. For example, as shown in Figure 11, for Grade 7 (detached houses), the thermal insulation performance grade equality correction coefficient (h3): 2.5 is set based on UA ​​(thermal insulation) and ηAC (solar heat gain) set according to the regional classification. Subsequently, for Grade 6 (detached houses), it is set to (h3): 2.0, for Grade 5 to (h3): 1.5, for Grade 4 to (h3): 1.3, for Grade 3 to (h3): 1, for Grade 2 to (h3): 0.8, and for Grade 1 or no performance information, it is set to (h3): 0.8.

[0073] Based on the above values ​​of (h1), (h2), and (h3), the processor unit 30 calculates the quality ratio correction coefficient (h) related to the replacement cost (H) by applying it to the formula: "Quality ratio correction coefficient (h) = (Seismic performance quality ratio correction coefficient (h1) + Primary energy consumption quality ratio correction coefficient (h2) + Thermal insulation performance grade quality ratio correction coefficient (h3)) ÷ Number of quality ratio correction coefficient items".

[0074] For example, if a newly constructed wooden building in 2022 has a seismic superstructure rating of 1.5, a primary energy consumption rating of 6, and a thermal insulation performance rating of 5 (Tokyo), the quality ratio adjustment coefficient (h) related to the replacement cost (H) is h = (h1 + h2 + h3) ÷ 3 = (1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5) ÷ 3 = 1.5. According to the standard building price list for buildings in Figure 8, the price in 2022 was 176,300 yen / m 2Therefore, the adjusted replacement cost (H') adjusted by the quality ratio adjustment coefficient (h) is H' = H × h = 176.2 thousand yen × 1.5 = 264.3 thousand yen / m 2 This allows for a proper adjustment of the replacement cost (H) and the identification of a more accurate adjusted replacement cost (H').

[0075] Furthermore, to explain another example of how to calculate this quality standard adjustment coefficient (h), if the seismic performance quality standard adjustment coefficient (h1) is, for example, (h1):1.5, and there is no performance information for the primary energy consumption quality standard adjustment coefficient (h2) and the thermal insulation performance grade quality standard adjustment coefficient (h3), then as shown in Figure 10, (h2):1 is specified, and as shown in Figure 11, (h3):0.8 is specified, and h = (h1 + h2 + h3) ÷ 3 = (1.5 + 1 + 0.8) ÷ 3 = 1.1 is calculated.

[0076] Next, we will explain examples of the remaining useful life (F), the remaining residual value rate (G), and the housing valuation amount (J) calculated based on the numerical examples (A, B, C, D, H) specified above.

[0077] For example, a 120m² wooden detached house built in April 1995. 2 In the case of a residential building where a building condition survey has been conducted (yes) and there are no signs of deterioration, the following numerical examples are given: expected useful life (A): 40 years, age of building (B): 30 years, correction factor (C): 0.8, average of parts (D): 0.65, and (H): 158.3 thousand yen. The replacement cost (H) will be the price from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's "Standard Building Construction Cost Table" for 1995.

[0078] In other words, in the above numerical example, the remaining useful life (F) can be calculated with an upper limit of F = A - B + {A × C × D} = 40 - 30 + {40 × 0.8 × 0.65} = 30.8 (years) and a lower limit of F = A - B + {B × C × D} = 40 - 30 + {30 × 0.8 × 0.65} = 25.6 (years). Furthermore, based on these upper and lower limits of the remaining useful life (F), the median can be calculated by the processor unit 30 as (30.8 (upper limit) + 25.6 (lower limit)) ÷ 2 = 28.2 (years).

[0079] Therefore, the residual value rate (G) can be calculated using the formula G(%) = F ÷ A × 100. That is, the upper limit of the residual value rate (G) is G(%) = F ÷ A × 100 = 30.8 ÷ 40 × 100 = 77(%), and the lower limit of the residual value rate (G) is F ÷ A × 100 = 25.6 ÷ 40 × 100 = 64(%). Furthermore, the median of this residual value rate (G) is (77 + 64) ÷ 2 = 70.5%.

[0080] The assessed value of a house (J) can be calculated using the formula J(yen) = H × G ÷ 100 × I. That is, the upper limit of the assessed value of a house (J) is J(thousand yen) = H × G ÷ 100 × I = 158.3(thousand yen) × 77 ÷ 100 × 120 = 14,626.9(thousand yen), and the lower limit of the assessed value of a house (J) is J(thousand yen) = H × G ÷ 100 × I = 158.3(thousand yen) × 64 ÷ 100 × 120 = 12,157.4(thousand yen). Furthermore, the median of this assessed value of a house (J) is (14,626.9 + 12,157.4) ÷ 2 = 13,392.2(thousand yen).

[0081] In contrast, without a building condition survey, it is not possible to calculate the additional useful life ({A×C×D} or {B×C×D}), so the remaining useful life (F) is calculated as F=AB=40-30=10 (years), the residual value rate (G) is calculated as G=F÷A×100=10÷40×100=25, and the assessed value of the house (J) is calculated as J(thousand yen)=H×G÷100×I=158.3(thousand yen)×25÷100×120=4,749.0(thousand yen).

[0082] Thus, there is a significant difference in the assessed value of the house (J) when additional useful life ({A×C×D} or {B×C×D}) is added, reflecting the building condition survey, compared to when no building condition survey is conducted. In other words, according to the embodiment of the present invention, by reflecting the building condition survey, the basis for the assessment becomes clearer, and the reliability of the assessment can be increased as it is more in line with the actual situation.

[0083] Then, applying the example of the quality adjustment coefficient (h) related to replacement cost (H) to the aforementioned example of a wooden detached house built in April 1995, for example, if the seismic superstructure rating is 1, the primary energy consumption rating is 4, and the thermal insulation performance rating is 4 (Tokyo), then the quality adjustment coefficient (h) related to replacement cost (H) is h = (h1 + h2 + h3) ÷ 3 = (1 + 1.1 + 1.3) ÷ 3 = 1.13. According to the standard building price list for buildings in Figure 8, the price in 1995 was 158,300 yen / m 2 Therefore, the adjusted replacement cost (H') adjusted by the quality ratio adjustment coefficient (h) is H' = H × h = 158.3 thousand yen × 1.13 = 178.9 thousand yen / m 2 This allows for a proper adjustment of the replacement cost (H) and the identification of a more accurate adjusted replacement cost (H').

[0084] By using this adjusted replacement cost (H') as a basis and applying it to the values ​​in the example above, we can calculate the housing valuation (J). The upper limit of the housing valuation (J) is J(thousand yen) = H' × G ÷ 100 × I = 178.9(thousand yen) × 77 ÷ 100 × 120 = 16,530.4(thousand yen), and the lower limit of the housing valuation (J) is J(thousand yen) = H' × G ÷ 100 × I = 178.9(thousand yen) × 64 ÷ 100 × 120 = 13,739.5(thousand yen), allowing for a more accurate valuation.

[0085] Furthermore, if the building being evaluated is an apartment building, the aforementioned management score (E) value (see Figure 7) is reflected, resulting in an additional useful life of {A×C×D×E} or {B×C×D×E}. This allows for the appropriate calculation of the remaining useful life (F) for apartment buildings, enabling a more realistic evaluation and a more appropriate valuation based on future projections.

[0086] For example, if the "Condominium Management Plan Certification" shown in Figure 7 is valid, the management score (E) is E:1.2. Applying this to the conditions mentioned above, the upper limit of the remaining useful life (F) is F=A-B+{A×C×D×E}=40-30+{40×0.8×0.65×1.2}=35 (years), and the lower limit is F=A-B+{B×C×D}=40-30+{30×0.8×0.65×1.2}=28.7 (years). This remaining useful life (F) is then reflected in the residual value rate (G) and the housing valuation amount (J), enabling a more appropriate building price assessment for multi-unit housing.

[0087] Furthermore, in the present invention, the housing valuation amount (J) may be corrected by an intrinsic value correction coefficient, which is set as a correction coefficient with an evaluation value related to intrinsic value, including historical value, design value, and cultural value, which are unique value elements that each building under evaluation possesses individually.

[0088] This unique value-add adjustment coefficient allows for the proper reflection of the unique value-added properties (J) of the property being appraised, such as historically valuable homes, designer homes designed by renowned architects, or homes whose value has significantly increased through renovations. This unique value-add adjustment coefficient can be determined using indicators (calculation elements) such as a premium price assessed in accordance with actual transaction conditions (actual results) or a premium price arbitrarily assessed by the researcher.

[0089] Although various preferred embodiments of the present invention have been described above, the present invention is not limited to these embodiments, and many modifications can be made without departing from the spirit of the invention. [Explanation of symbols]

[0090] A Expected useful life B. Year of construction C correction factor D Area Average E Management points F Remaining useful life G Residual Value H Replacement cost I Building area J. Housing valuation a n Expected service life by part b n Years elapsed by body part x n Price breakdown by part y n Residual value by part z n Residual value breakdown by part 10 Input section 20 Database Department 30 Processor section 40 Output section

Claims

1. A building price evaluation system that calculates the remaining useful life (F) of the building to be evaluated, uses the replacement cost (H), which is the assumed price of a building equivalent to the building to be evaluated if it were newly constructed at the time of evaluation, as the base price, and calculates the residential value (J) by multiplying the replacement cost (H) by the residual value rate (G), which is the ratio obtained by dividing the remaining useful life (F) by the expected useful life (A), which is evaluated according to standards including seismic performance for each construction date, and the building area (I), An input unit into which information relating to the building to be evaluated is entered, including building basic information such as the construction date (B) and the construction date and building area (I) to specify the year of construction and the year in which the building standards apply, building condition survey information, and renovation status survey information according to the status of equipment updates and maintenance, including renovations. A database unit that stores data including the expected useful life (A) set to be selected according to the construction date, a correction coefficient (C) set to be selected based on building condition survey information, information set to calculate the part average (D), which is a correction coefficient identified based on the renovation status survey information obtained for each component of the building to be evaluated, and the replacement cost (H) set to be selected according to the construction date, wherein the data identified by the information entered by the input unit is stored. A processor unit that calculates the remaining useful life (F) using calculation elements including the expected useful life (A), the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), and the average of the parts (D), calculates the residual value rate (G) using calculation elements including the remaining useful life (F) and the expected useful life (A), and calculates the housing valuation amount (J) using calculation elements including the replacement cost (H), the residual value rate (G), and the building area (I), A building price valuation system characterized by comprising an output unit that outputs the remaining useful life (F), the remaining residual value rate (G), and the housing valuation amount (J).

2. The remaining useful life (F) is, The building price evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that the upper limit is a value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life calculated by multiplying the expected useful life (A), the correction coefficient (C), and the average of the parts (D).

3. The remaining useful life (F) is, The building price evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that the lower limit is a value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life calculated by multiplying the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), and the average of the parts (D).

4. The building being evaluated is an apartment building, The information input to the aforementioned input unit includes information on the management status of apartment buildings, The information stored in the database unit includes a management score (E), which is an evaluation score set to be selected by the aforementioned apartment building management status survey information. The building price evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that the management score (E) is included as a calculation element for the remaining useful life (F) calculated by the processor unit.

5. The remaining useful life (F) is, The building price evaluation system according to claim 4, characterized in that the upper limit is a value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life calculated by multiplying the expected useful life (A), the correction coefficient (C), the average of the parts (D), and the management score (E).

6. The remaining useful life (F) is, The building price evaluation system according to claim 4, characterized in that the lower limit is a value obtained by subtracting the age of the building (B) from the expected useful life (A), and adding the additional useful life calculated by multiplying the age of the building (B), the correction coefficient (C), the average of the parts (D), and the management score (E).

7. The building price evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the correction coefficient (C) identified based on the building condition survey information is set to select a value between 0 and 1 and stored in the database unit, and is identified in correspondence with the resilience status of the building to be evaluated relative to the expected useful life (A) given for each construction date of the building to be evaluated, by inputting whether or not a building condition survey was conducted on the building to be evaluated or the number of deterioration events in the results of the building condition survey.

8. The above-mentioned part average (D) is the price ratio of each component part including the foundation and the building body, the roofing material, the exterior wall material, the fixtures, the interior finish, the kitchen, the bathroom, the washroom, the toilet, the water supply / drainage and hot water supply equipment, and the lighting and electrical equipment to the whole building, and is set as a part-by-part price composition ratio (x ｎ ), and the part-by-part expected service life (a ｎ ) stored in the above-mentioned database part, and according to the information input by the above-mentioned input part by the renovation status survey information, for each component part, from the part-by-part expected service life (a ｎ ), after subtracting the part-by-part elapsed years (b ｎ ), which is the physical or deemed elapsed years from the time of renewal of the corresponding part, and then dividing by the part-by-part expected service life (a ｎ ), the part-by-part remaining residual value rate (y ｎ ) of each component part is calculated, and the part-by-part remaining residual value composition rate (z ｎ ) is calculated by multiplying the part-by-part price composition ratio (x ｎ ) by the part-by-part remaining residual value rate (y ｎ ), and the building price evaluation system according to claim 1 is calculated by summing up the part-by-part remaining residual value composition rates (z ｎ ) of all component parts.

9. The building price evaluation system according to claim 4, characterized in that the building to be evaluated is a multi-unit dwelling, and the management score (E) is determined based on the multi-unit dwelling management status survey information which includes at least one piece of information from the following: the certification of the condominium management plan, the operational status of the management association, the provisions of the management regulations, the adequacy of management fees and repair reserve funds, and the implementation status of repair and improvement work.

10. The building price evaluation system according to claim 1, characterized in that the replacement cost (H) is corrected by a quality rate correction coefficient, which is a correction coefficient that includes evaluation values ​​related to the seismic performance and energy-saving performance of the building to be evaluated as calculation elements.

11. The building price valuation system according to claim 1, characterized in that it adjusts the housing valuation amount (J) by an intrinsic value adjustment coefficient, which is set as a correction coefficient, with the valuation value related to intrinsic value, including historical value, design value, and cultural value, which are intrinsic value elements that each building under valuation possesses individually, as a calculation element.

12. A program for use in a building price valuation system, characterized in that it is a program that causes the operation steps of the input unit, the database unit, the processor unit, and the output unit in a building price valuation system described in any one of claims 1 to 11.

Images