beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal 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 about the same living facts and only the method of resolving the dispute is recognized as identical.
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 grounds of appeal that the provisional attachment of this case does not affect the claim for additional construction cost, the lower court determined that the provisional attachment of this case extends to the claim for additional construction cost that the Defendant shall pay to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.
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 ground of appeal that C’s request for direct non-performance constitutes the notification of assignment of claims
(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 Decision 93Da2423 delivered on April 26, 1994