The case of the day is Larson v. Yoon (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). Keith and Cynthia Larson sued Kyungsik Yoon after an auto collision in King County, Washington. The Larsons lived there; Yoon was a resident of South Korea. The Larsons sued and sought to serve Yoon with process by service on the Washington secretary of state, as provided by Washington statutes. The secretary of state then mailed the documents to Yoon, again as provided by statute. Yoon sought summary judgment on the grounds that he had not been properly been served. The court denied the motion, and Yoon took an interlocutory appeal.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Larson v. Yoon
The case of the day is Hyundai Securities Co. v. Lee (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). Lee was the CEO of Hyundai Securities from 1996 to 2000. Several Hyundai shareholders brought a shareholder derivative action against Lee in the Seoul Southern District Court, claiming that Lee was guilty of securities fraud. Lee appeared and defended. The Korean court entered judgment in favor of Hyundai for approximately $24 million plus interest at 20%. A portion of the damages were for a criminal fine Hyundai paid in Korea on account of Lee’s acts. Lee appealed to the Seoul Court of Appeals and then to the Korean Supreme Court. Both appellate courts dismissed the appeals. The dismissals were based on the merits. Hyundai then sought recognition of the judgment in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The court entered judgment in favor of Hyundai in a summary proceeding, but the Court of Appeal reversed on the grounds that Hyundai could not proceed by way of a petition but had to seek summary judgment. I covered this aspect of the case in April 2013. On remand, Hyundai moved for summary judgment. Lee argued that the court could not recognize the portion of the judgment attributable to the criminal fine, or the 20% interest rate. The court entered judgment in favor of Hyundai, and Lee appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Hyundai Securities v. Lee
I have a guest post today from Ivy Chen (陈盛兰), a law student the Peking University School of Transnational Law, on a recent decision of the Supreme People’s Court of China. Welcome, Ivy! I don’t claim to be able to evaluate this decision. It would be interesting to get a real comparative view of this.
The case of the day is WooshinmtCo, Ltd. v. Fu Sheng Optoelectronics (Jiangsu), Ltd., a retrial case from the Supreme People’s Court of China. WooshinmtCo, a South Korean company, applied to the Supreme People’s Court of China for retrial of a judgment on contract disputes between itself and Fu Sheng Optoelectronics, a Chinese company, issued by the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province. This case does not address the process of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment in China. Instead, it sheds light on the possibility of using unrecognized foreign judgment as evidence in Chinese court proceedings.
Continue reading Case of the Day: WooshinmtCo v. Fu Sheng Optoelectronics