Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp v Huh - [2018] NZHC 3015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-000664

[2018] NZHC 3015

BETWEEN
YOONWOO C & C DEVELOPMENT CORP

Plaintiff

AND

JAE HO HUH

Defendant

Hearing: 4 October 2018

Appearances:

B R Saldanha for Plaintiff

Judgment:

20 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 November 2018 at 4:00 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Jackson Russell, Auckland

YOONWOO C & C DEVELOPMENT CORP v JAE HO HUH [2018] NZHC 3015 [20 November 2018]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp, applies for entry of summary judgment against the defendant Jae Ho Huh, and seeks orders for the registration of two judicial arbitration decisions made by a Court in the Republic of Korea in 2010, which order the defendant to make payments to the plaintiff. Although formerly a resident of South Korea, the defendant has since moved to New Zealand and is presently residing and conducting business here.

[2] The proceedings and summary judgment application have been served upon the defendant pursuant to an order for substituted service made by the Court on 27 June 2018.1 The application for summary judgment was initially set down for hearing on 21 August 2018. The defendant has taken no steps in the proceeding and there was no appearance by or on his behalf at the hearing on 21 August 2018, so the application for summary judgment was adjourned and set down for a formal proof hearing on 4 October 2018.2 Again, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the defendant at the formal proof hearing before me on 4 October 2018.

[3] Although no defence has been filed, in order to obtain an order for summary judgment, and as a preliminary issue the plaintiff must satisfy this court that the judicial arbitration decisions made by the Court in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) meet the requirements for the registration of foreign judgments. A further issue I must determine is whether the plaintiff’s reliance upon the South Korean Court’s judicial arbitration decisions made in 2010 is prohibited by the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1950.

1 The order for substituted service made by AJ Smith on 27 June 2018 directed that service upon the defendant be effected by delivering the statement of claim, notice of proceeding, interlocutory application for summary judgment, and the affidavits of Sang Kweon Lee and Moon Woo Park together with a sealed copy of the order for substituted service at the registered office of KNCC Limited in Auckland, and by advertising the proceeding once in the New Zealand Herald newspaper.
2 A Minute issued by Edwards J on 21 August 2018, in which her Honour noted that the application for summary judgment had been adjourned from 21 August and was to be allocated a further hearing date to procced as a formal proof hearing, together with email correspondence from…

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 Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp v Huh 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: [2018] NZHC 3015
Decision Date: 20 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp, a construction company based in the Republic of Korea, filed an application for summary judgment against Jae Ho Huh, who was formerly a resident of South Korea but is now residing and conducting business in New Zealand. Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp sought orders for the registration of two judicial arbitration decisions made by a court in the Republic of Korea in 2010, which ordered the defendant to make payments to the plaintiff. The court had to determine whether the judicial arbitration decisions made by the South Korean court met the requirements for registration of foreign judgments and whether the plaintiff's reliance on the South Korean court's decisions was prohibited by the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1950.

The court found that the pre-requisites for the registration of the two judicial arbitration decisions made by the court in Korea had been met. The court had jurisdiction over the defendant at the time and in the circumstances where judgment against him was entered. The contractual dispute from which the civil proceeding arose in South Korea was within the jurisdiction of the Korean District Court. The defendant had a representative present during the judicial arbitration hearings and participated in both arbitrations in which agreement was reached resulting in the two judicial arbitration decisions. The court was also satisfied that none of the three exceptions to registration arose in the present case. The court found that section 4(4) of the Limitation Act 1950 applied and the relevant limitation period in relation to the two Korean judgments was a period of 12 years, expiring on the twelfth anniversary of the date on which the judgments became enforceable. The Limitation Act 1950 did not operate as a bar to action being taken by the plaintiff in reliance on the two judicial arbitration decision judgments obtained in March and April 2010.

Accordingly, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant and made an order for the registration of the two Korean judgments such that they are of the same force and effect as a judgment of the High Court of New Zealand. The plaintiff was entitled to costs, and the court reserved the question of costs and directed the plaintiff to file a memorandum as to costs within 10 working days. The court also reserved leave to the plaintiff to apply for any further orders consequent upon the orders made herein.

Orders