This paper suggests that the frozen scope of the DO in the IO-DO order is triggered by the choice function interpretation of the IO. This analysis is against H. Lee’s (2020) argument that the scope rigidity of the sentence can be explained as an effect of the specificity constraint that topicality of an indefinite IO in the IO-DO order is interpreted as specific, which triggers a wide-scope interpretation over the universally quantified DO. Although the preferred scope can be determined by the argument, it cannot explain the difference between the scope freezing effect and scope ambiguity in the IO-DO order when the numeral-quantified IO appears. The paper also argues that the smaller the number of the numeral-quantified IO and the stronger the choice function interpretation, the greater the scope freezing effect of the IO against the DO. The wide scope of an indefinite recipient (i.e., etten haksayng-eykey/ul ’a certain student-DAT/ACC’) or a DAT-marked recipient (i.e., haksayng(-tul)-eykey ’student(-PL)-DAT’) following a universally quantified or a numeral-quantified DO in the IO-DO order in the VP domain triggers the scope freezing effect against the DO. These are the peculiarities that the ditransitive constructions where the dative verb cwu ’give’ or the serial verb combined with (-a/e) cwu appears show.