Huh v Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp - [2022] NZHC 1958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-664

[2022] NZHC 1958

BETWEEN
JAE HO HUH

Applicant

AND

YOONWOO C & C DEVELOPMENT CORP

Respondent

Hearing: 8 August 2022

Appearances:

S Holden and K Grant for Applicant

A Holmes and N Foulis for Respondent

Judgment:

9 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

(Application for adjournment/stay)

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 9 August 2022 at 3.30 pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Loo & Koo/A J B Holmes and N M Foulis, Auckland Chapman Tripp, Auckland

HUH v YOONWOO C & C DEVELOPMENT CORP [2022] NZHC 1958 [9 August 2022]

Introduction

[1] The respondent, Yoonwoo C & C Development Corporation (Yoonwoo), has commenced proceedings against the applicant, Jae Ho Huh (Mr Huh). Yoonwoo seeks recognition and registration of Korean judgments given against Mr Huh in a total sum of approximately NZD 8.5 million (2.03 billion Korean Won (KRW)), together with interest accruing at the rate of 20 per cent per annum since 2010. Mr Huh is defending the proceeding.

[2] The proceeding is due to be heard over five days, commencing on 22 August 2022.

[3]On 21 July 2022, Mr Huh applied for orders:

(a)staying the proceeding until such time as bankruptcy proceedings against him in Korea have concluded;

(b)adjourning the fixture date; and

(c)on costs.

The application is opposed by Yoonwoo.

Background

[4] Yoonwoo is a construction company based in the Republic of Korea. Mr Huh resides in New Zealand. He says that he has done so for some 13 years. He was formerly the President/Chairman and a member of the board of various companies, including Dae Joo Construction Corporation, Dae Han Construction Corporation and Mirae RAC Corporation, all in the Republic of Korea (jointly the “Dae Joo companies”).

[5] Disputes arose between Yoonwoo, Mr Huh and the Dae Joo companies. Yoonwoo and the Dae Joo companies entered into three settlement agreements to resolve the disputes in 2008. Mr Huh was a party to two of the agreements. The third agreement, to which Mr Huh was not a party, obliged one of the Dae Joo companies –

Mirae RAC Corporation – to pay Yoonwoo KRW 2.7 billion and to provide Yoonwoo with documents necessary so that it could redeem a KRW 0.89 billion deposit.

[6] Mirae RAC Corporation paid KRW 1.5 million to Yoonwoo but it failed to pay the balance owing.

[7] Yoonwoo issued proceedings in Korea against the Dae Joo companies and Mr Huh in 2009, seeking payments of the balance owing under the settlement agreements. Steps were taken to defend the proceedings. In late November 2009, documents were filed with the Korean Court, which were purportedly approved by all defendants including Mr Huh, appointing Mirae RAC Corporation to represent them in the proceedings.

[8] Yoonwoo and a representative of Mirae RAC Corporation attended a judicial mediation in Korea…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Huh v Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 1958
Decision Date: 9 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Jae Ho Huh sought an adjournment and stay of a proceeding brought by Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp, a South Korean construction company, against him. Yoonwoo sought recognition and registration of Korean judgments against Mr. Huh in the total sum of approximately NZD 8.5 million, together with interest accruing at the rate of 20 per cent per annum since 2010. Mr. Huh applied for the proceeding to be stayed until such time as bankruptcy proceedings against him in Korea have concluded, for the fixture date to be adjourned, and for costs. The application was opposed by Yoonwoo. The court declined the application for an adjournment and a stay. It found that the application for an adjournment was not supported by Mr. Huh's assertions of impecuniosity. The court also found that the recognition and registration of the Korean judgments in New Zealand were not precluded by Korean bankruptcy law. The court further found that the interests of justice did not favour an adjournment of the trial. Yoonwoo was entitled to its reasonable costs and disbursements.

Orders