Preview
KOBRE 6. KIM LLP
800 TH I RD AVENUE
NEW YORK , NEW YORK 10022
NEW YO R K
WWW. KOBREKIM.COM
L O N DO N
HO N G KONG
TEL + 1 212488 1200
S H ANG H A I
S E OUL
W AS HI N GT O N D C
SAN F R A NCISCO
M I AM I
CAYMAN I SLANDS
BV '
November 10, 2017
BY ECF AND US MAIL
Hon. O. Peter ShelWood
Supreme Court Chambers
New York County Court House
60 Centre Street
Part 49, Room 615
New York, NY 10007
Re: Sang Cheol Woo v. Charles C. Spackman
Index No. 652795/2017
Dear Honorable Justice ShelWood:
We represent Plaintiff Sang Cheol Woo and respectfully request leave from this Honorable
Court to submit this letter in response to the letter from Defendant Charles C. Spackman to the
Court filed on November 9, 2017. ECF Nos. 59 & 60.
This proceeding is a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recognize a
foreign money judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against Spackman by a court in South
Korea and affirmed on appeal to the Korean Supreme Court (the "Motion"). Plaintiff is also
pursuing enforcement elsewhere, including in Hong Kong. Yesterday, Spackman wrote to this
Court, arguing the Motion should be stayed because of a development in the enforcement
proceedings in Hong Kong. ECF Nos . 59 & 60. Spackman invites this Court to stay the Motion
pending an application filed in Korea requesting a new trial, because, according to Spackman, on
November 7,2017 a court in Hong Kong stayed enforcement in Hong Kong on that basis. Jd. We
write in response and to correct Spackman' s representations.
Hong Kong Proceedings
First, proceedings in Hong Kong to recognize the Korean judgment have nothing to do
with this Motion. The legal system in Hong Kong (a Special Administrative Region of the
People' s Republic of China) is vastly different from New York. There is no recognition statute
Hon. O. Peter Sherwood
November 10, 2017
Page 2
under Hong Kong law similar to Article 53 of the CPLR and, as described further below,
recognition in Hong Kong of a judgment from Korea requires a trial.
In contrast, in New York, because there are no grounds for non-recognition under the
CPLR, recognition of a final Korean judgment is ministerial. See, e.g. , Abu Dhabi Commercial
Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting and Financial Services Co., 117 A.D.3d 609, 611 (1st
Dep 't 2014) ("in proceeding under article 53 , the judgment creditor does not seek any new relief
against the judgment debtor, but instead merely asks the court to perform its ministerial function
of recognizing the foreign country money judgment and converting it into a New Yorkjudgment")
(quotation marks and citations omitted) .
Second, Spackman's letter may give the Court the false impression that the court in Hong
Kong has actually ruled in favor of Spackman' s request to stay the enforcement action there.
Spackman' s request for a stay in Hong Kong has not yet been decided.
Spackman made his application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings on May 31 , 2017 (the
"Hong Kong Stay Application"). At the first case management hearing on June 15, 2017,
Spackman's counsel asked the Hong Kong court to stay discovery pending resolution ofthe Hong
Kong Stay Application. The court denied that request and directed the parties, over the ensuing
six months, to file amended pleadings, exchange documents and witness statements, and appear
for a final case management hearing on February 5, 2018, at which a trial date will be set (likely
summer 2018). All of these steps are now complete except for (1) the exchange of witness
statements and (2) the final case management hearing.
On November 7, 2017, the High COUlt of Hong Kong issued a letter (cited by Spackman
in his submission yesterday) adjourning its decision on the Hong Kong Stay Application (see ECF
No. 60)1 "[w]ithout going into the merits" and "to await the outcome of the hearing [in Korea] on
23 November 2017." Id. at ~~ 3,8. The letter also entered what under Hong Kong law is called
an "interim case management stay," which will last approximately two to six weeks. The sole and
limited purpose of the interim case management stay is to "await the outcome of the hearing on 23
November 2017" in Korea before deciding the Hong Kong' Stay Application. Id, at ~~ 8, 9 ("The
parties have liberty to restore the [Hong Kong Stay Application] hearing ... after 23 November
201 7 .. , or after 31 December 2017.").
While the letter on its face purports to "stay" all further proceedings for two to six weeks,
as a practical matter, there is nothing to be stayed but the Hong Kong Stay Application itself. The
Hong Kong court did not delay the exchange of witness statements due on November 24, 2017.
Id. at ~ 9(2)( c) ("except that such stay shall not affect [the] exchange of witness statements at or
before 4 pm on 24 November 2017"). And the Hong Kong court did not put off the final case
management hearing on February 5, 2018 . Id. at ~ 9(2)(a), (b), & (c) ("The parties shall have
1 The November 7, 2017 letter from the High Court of Hong Kong is not an order. It is a summary
letter issued by the clerk of Madame Justice Lisa Wong. An order will be issued by the Hong
Kong court later which may differ from the summary letter issued by the clerk.
Hon. O. Peter Sherwood
November 10, 2017
Page 3
liberty to restore the hearing ...after 23 November 2017 ...or after 31 December 2017."). And
on February 5, 2018, the Hong Kong COUlt will calendar dates for a one to two-day trial to take
place most likely take place in summer 2018. These are the only steps that remain in the Hong
Kong case and the Hong Kong court has not stayed or delayed them. Spackman' s letter selectively
omits these important facts.
Korean Proceedings
Spackman represents to the Court that the Korean judgment is "actively undergoing retrial
in Korea." ECF No. 59 at 2. That is not true. There is no "retrial" in Korea. ECF No. 48 at 1.
All appellate review of the judgment in Korea has been exhausted. Id. at 5.
Instead, in April 2017, Spackman made an application to the Korean court to try to reopen
the judgment. Under Korean rules of civil procedure, there is nothing stopping a judgment debtor
from making such applications, no matter how frivolous or how numerous, notwithstanding the
finality of a Korean money judgment. Spackman's first such application has not been decided and
is set for a hearing on November 23, 2017 and, under the applicable rules, a decision will come
down within fOUl' weeks of the hearing. See ECF No. 60 at '\1'\15-7.
Adjudicatioll of this Motioll
The Korean "retrial application," probably the first of many, does not affect the finality of
the Korean judgment in any way. In fact, Plaintiff submits it is no more than a cynical attempt by
Spackman to manufacture the appearance of a finality issue as it relates to enforcement outside of
Korea. For that reason, the COUlt should grant the Motion under Article 53 to recognize the Korean
judgment for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs opening and reply briefs. ECF Nos. 4 (Opening Brief)
& 48 (Reply Brief).
Alternatively, Plaintiff acknowledges the hearing on Spackman' s first "retrial application"
in Korea is imminent (scheduled for November 23,2017) and that a decision on that application
will likely be rendered before the end of the year. Accordingly, Plaintiffreiterates his request for
oral argument on the Motion and suggests the Court may set a hearing on the Motion for early
January 2017, by which time Spackman's "retrial application" in Korean will have been denied.
RJt~/t:mitted'
John Han
Marcus J. Green
KOBRE & KIM LLP
+ 1212488 1200
cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)
Preview
KOBRE 6. KIM LLP 800 TH I RD AVENUE NEW YORK , NEW YORK 10022 NEW YO R K WWW. KOBREKIM.COM L O N DO N HO N G KONG TEL + 1 212488 1200 S H ANG H A I S E OUL W AS HI N GT O N D C SAN F R A NCISCO M I AM I CAYMAN I SLANDS BV ' November 10, 2017 BY ECF AND US MAIL Hon. O. Peter ShelWood Supreme Court Chambers New York County Court House 60 Centre Street Part 49, Room 615 New York, NY 10007 Re: Sang Cheol Woo v. Charles C. Spackman Index No. 652795/2017 Dear Honorable Justice ShelWood: We represent Plaintiff Sang Cheol Woo and respectfully request leave from this Honorable Court to submit this letter in response to the letter from Defendant Charles C. Spackman to the Court filed on November 9, 2017. ECF Nos. 59 & 60. This proceeding is a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recognize a foreign money judgment rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against Spackman by a court in South Korea and affirmed on appeal to the Korean Supreme Court (the "Motion"). Plaintiff is also pursuing enforcement elsewhere, including in Hong Kong. Yesterday, Spackman wrote to this Court, arguing the Motion should be stayed because of a development in the enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong. ECF Nos . 59 & 60. Spackman invites this Court to stay the Motion pending an application filed in Korea requesting a new trial, because, according to Spackman, on November 7,2017 a court in Hong Kong stayed enforcement in Hong Kong on that basis. Jd. We write in response and to correct Spackman' s representations. Hong Kong Proceedings First, proceedings in Hong Kong to recognize the Korean judgment have nothing to do with this Motion. The legal system in Hong Kong (a Special Administrative Region of the People' s Republic of China) is vastly different from New York. There is no recognition statute Hon. O. Peter Sherwood November 10, 2017 Page 2 under Hong Kong law similar to Article 53 of the CPLR and, as described further below, recognition in Hong Kong of a judgment from Korea requires a trial. In contrast, in New York, because there are no grounds for non-recognition under the CPLR, recognition of a final Korean judgment is ministerial. See, e.g. , Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting and Financial Services Co., 117 A.D.3d 609, 611 (1st Dep 't 2014) ("in proceeding under article 53 , the judgment creditor does not seek any new relief against the judgment debtor, but instead merely asks the court to perform its ministerial function of recognizing the foreign country money judgment and converting it into a New Yorkjudgment") (quotation marks and citations omitted) . Second, Spackman's letter may give the Court the false impression that the court in Hong Kong has actually ruled in favor of Spackman' s request to stay the enforcement action there. Spackman' s request for a stay in Hong Kong has not yet been decided. Spackman made his application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings on May 31 , 2017 (the "Hong Kong Stay Application"). At the first case management hearing on June 15, 2017, Spackman's counsel asked the Hong Kong court to stay discovery pending resolution ofthe Hong Kong Stay Application. The court denied that request and directed the parties, over the ensuing six months, to file amended pleadings, exchange documents and witness statements, and appear for a final case management hearing on February 5, 2018, at which a trial date will be set (likely summer 2018). All of these steps are now complete except for (1) the exchange of witness statements and (2) the final case management hearing. On November 7, 2017, the High COUlt of Hong Kong issued a letter (cited by Spackman in his submission yesterday) adjourning its decision on the Hong Kong Stay Application (see ECF No. 60)1 "[w]ithout going into the merits" and "to await the outcome of the hearing [in Korea] on 23 November 2017." Id. at ~~ 3,8. The letter also entered what under Hong Kong law is called an "interim case management stay," which will last approximately two to six weeks. The sole and limited purpose of the interim case management stay is to "await the outcome of the hearing on 23 November 2017" in Korea before deciding the Hong Kong' Stay Application. Id, at ~~ 8, 9 ("The parties have liberty to restore the [Hong Kong Stay Application] hearing ... after 23 November 201 7 .. , or after 31 December 2017."). While the letter on its face purports to "stay" all further proceedings for two to six weeks, as a practical matter, there is nothing to be stayed but the Hong Kong Stay Application itself. The Hong Kong court did not delay the exchange of witness statements due on November 24, 2017. Id. at ~ 9(2)( c) ("except that such stay shall not affect [the] exchange of witness statements at or before 4 pm on 24 November 2017"). And the Hong Kong court did not put off the final case management hearing on February 5, 2018 . Id. at ~ 9(2)(a), (b), & (c) ("The parties shall have 1 The November 7, 2017 letter from the High Court of Hong Kong is not an order. It is a summary letter issued by the clerk of Madame Justice Lisa Wong. An order will be issued by the Hong Kong court later which may differ from the summary letter issued by the clerk. Hon. O. Peter Sherwood November 10, 2017 Page 3 liberty to restore the hearing ...after 23 November 2017 ...or after 31 December 2017."). And on February 5, 2018, the Hong Kong COUlt will calendar dates for a one to two-day trial to take place most likely take place in summer 2018. These are the only steps that remain in the Hong Kong case and the Hong Kong court has not stayed or delayed them. Spackman' s letter selectively omits these important facts. Korean Proceedings Spackman represents to the Court that the Korean judgment is "actively undergoing retrial in Korea." ECF No. 59 at 2. That is not true. There is no "retrial" in Korea. ECF No. 48 at 1. All appellate review of the judgment in Korea has been exhausted. Id. at 5. Instead, in April 2017, Spackman made an application to the Korean court to try to reopen the judgment. Under Korean rules of civil procedure, there is nothing stopping a judgment debtor from making such applications, no matter how frivolous or how numerous, notwithstanding the finality of a Korean money judgment. Spackman's first such application has not been decided and is set for a hearing on November 23, 2017 and, under the applicable rules, a decision will come down within fOUl' weeks of the hearing. See ECF No. 60 at '\1'\15-7. Adjudicatioll of this Motioll The Korean "retrial application," probably the first of many, does not affect the finality of the Korean judgment in any way. In fact, Plaintiff submits it is no more than a cynical attempt by Spackman to manufacture the appearance of a finality issue as it relates to enforcement outside of Korea. For that reason, the COUlt should grant the Motion under Article 53 to recognize the Korean judgment for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs opening and reply briefs. ECF Nos. 4 (Opening Brief) & 48 (Reply Brief). Alternatively, Plaintiff acknowledges the hearing on Spackman' s first "retrial application" in Korea is imminent (scheduled for November 23,2017) and that a decision on that application will likely be rendered before the end of the year. Accordingly, Plaintiffreiterates his request for oral argument on the Motion and suggests the Court may set a hearing on the Motion for early January 2017, by which time Spackman's "retrial application" in Korean will have been denied. RJt~/t:mitted' John Han Marcus J. Green KOBRE & KIM LLP + 1212488 1200 cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)