The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant claim for construction cost constitutes a litigation trust for the purpose of litigation and thus null and void.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding a litigation trust or by erroneously recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules as stated in the grounds of appeal.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise, on the ground that it was insufficient to prove that the possession of the instant Switzerland building, such as B, etc., which obtained the consent of T, the owner of the instant Switzerland building, was an occupation without title.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that there was no lien on the Switzerland building in order to secure the Defendant’s claim for the construction cost, as it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s claim for the construction cost of L, the Defendant acquired and the Switzerland building of this case were in harmony

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the integrity of claims and objects or in the lien, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion.