1. As to the assertion that the conjunctive claim is unlawful, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the conjunctive claim is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s primary claim and the conjunctive claim are related to the same living facts, and only the dispute resolution method is different, and it is recognized as identical to the claim.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of the claim basis, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. As to the assertion that the provisional attachment effect of the Plaintiff’s completion does not extend to the additional construction cost, the lower court determined, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that the provisional attachment effect of the Plaintiff’s completion extends to the additional construction cost that the Defendant shall pay to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of validity of provisional seizure.

3. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

(a) If the claims are transferred double, the order between the assignee shall not be determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor’s recognition of the assignment of claims, that is, by the date when the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor, or after the date of acceptance with the fixed date.

This legal doctrine is likewise applicable to cases where a person who executed an order of provisional seizure on the same claim as the assignee of the claim determines the heat between the person who executed the order of provisional seizure. Thus, the decision of the transfer of claims with a fixed date and the decision of provisional seizure should be made after the arrival of the third obligor (in cases of the transfer

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24223 delivered on April 26, 1994). A debtor is subject to seizure or provisional seizure.