On May 23, 2017 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Sang Cheol Woo,
and
Charles C. Spackman,
for Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
KOBREsKlM LLP
800 THIRD AVENUE
NEw YORK, NEw YORK 10022
NEW YORK
WWW.KOBREKIM.COM
LONDON
HON ONG
TEL +1 212 488 1200
SHANGHAI
SEOUL
WASHINGTON DC
SAN FRANCESCO
MIAMI
CAYMAN ISLAN DS
BVI
December 22, 2017
BY ECF AND US MAIL
Hon. O. Peter Sherwood
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 Sherwood:
We represent Plaintiff Sang Cheol Woo and write to update the Court regarding recent
developments in Korea that affect these proceedings. On November 9, 2017, Defendant Charles
Spackman wrote an unsolicited letter to the Court requesting the Court to stay Plaintiff's motion
"Motion"
to recognize a Korean money judgment (the "Motion") on the basis of an application he had filed
Application"
in Korea to re-open the litigation there (the "Korean Application"). Yesterday, the Korean court
dismissed Spackman's Korean Application on the merits. Exhibit A (December 21, 2017 Seoul
High Court 2017JaeNa292 docket report and English translation). A written decision is expected
to be published next week.
"Opposition"
Spackman's opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 39) (the "Opposition") is dependent on the
pendency of the Korean Application and the merits of the substantive arguments made in the
Korean Application. The Opposition argues, for example, that the Korean judgment cannot be
Korea"
recognized because itis "actively undergoing retrial in (ECF No. 39 at 11) and that the
"premature" Korea"
Motion is because "[r]etrial proceedings are currently underway in (ECF No.
39 at 4). The Opposition repeats the arguments made in the Korean Application.
1 retrial"
In fact, the Korean judgment was never "undergoing as Spackman represented. Rather,
as the Korean court's dismissal demonstrates, Spackman applied for leave to re-open the Korean
litigation. The Korean court has denied that application and the Korean case was never re-opened.
Hon. O. Peter Sherwood
December 22, 2017
Page 2
The Korean court's decision yesterday dismissing the Korean Application on the merits
critically undermines Spackman's Opposition to the Motion. Accordingly, for these reasons and
for the reasons stated in the Motion (ECF No. 4) and the Reply in Further Support of the Motion
(ECF No. 48), we respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John Han
John Han
Marcus J. Green
KOBRE & KIM LLP
+1 212 488 1200
cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)
Document Filed Date
December 22, 2017
Case Filing Date
May 23, 2017
Category
Commercial Division
Status
Disposed, Motion Pending
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
KOBREsKlM LLP 800 THIRD AVENUE NEw YORK, NEw YORK 10022 NEW YORK WWW.KOBREKIM.COM LONDON HON ONG TEL +1 212 488 1200 SHANGHAI SEOUL WASHINGTON DC SAN FRANCESCO MIAMI CAYMAN ISLAN DS BVI December 22, 2017 BY ECF AND US MAIL Hon. O. Peter Sherwood 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 Sherwood: We represent Plaintiff Sang Cheol Woo and write to update the Court regarding recent developments in Korea that affect these proceedings. On November 9, 2017, Defendant Charles Spackman wrote an unsolicited letter to the Court requesting the Court to stay Plaintiff's motion "Motion" to recognize a Korean money judgment (the "Motion") on the basis of an application he had filed Application" in Korea to re-open the litigation there (the "Korean Application"). Yesterday, the Korean court dismissed Spackman's Korean Application on the merits. Exhibit A (December 21, 2017 Seoul High Court 2017JaeNa292 docket report and English translation). A written decision is expected to be published next week. "Opposition" Spackman's opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 39) (the "Opposition") is dependent on the pendency of the Korean Application and the merits of the substantive arguments made in the Korean Application. The Opposition argues, for example, that the Korean judgment cannot be Korea" recognized because itis "actively undergoing retrial in (ECF No. 39 at 11) and that the "premature" Korea" Motion is because "[r]etrial proceedings are currently underway in (ECF No. 39 at 4). The Opposition repeats the arguments made in the Korean Application. 1 retrial" In fact, the Korean judgment was never "undergoing as Spackman represented. Rather, as the Korean court's dismissal demonstrates, Spackman applied for leave to re-open the Korean litigation. The Korean court has denied that application and the Korean case was never re-opened. Hon. O. Peter Sherwood December 22, 2017 Page 2 The Korean court's decision yesterday dismissing the Korean Application on the merits critically undermines Spackman's Opposition to the Motion. Accordingly, for these reasons and for the reasons stated in the Motion (ECF No. 4) and the Reply in Further Support of the Motion (ECF No. 48), we respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John Han John Han Marcus J. Green KOBRE & KIM LLP +1 212 488 1200 cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)