Let’s assume you file an action for a money judgment in the US court or any jurisdiction other than South Korea, and the defendant has significant assets located in South Korea. In that case, you might need to consider putting a provisional attachment on those assets in order to prevent the defendant from hiding or liquidating the assets to render the judgement ineffectual. Then this situation entails the following question: can a plaintiff in a foreign proceeding apply for a provisional attachment to the Korean court, while pursuing the proceeding in the merit in foreign jurisdiction?
The answer is yes. The Korean court grants and issues a provisional attachment order per the foreign creditor’s application in support of proceedings which have been or are to be commenced in a place outside of South Korea. It does not require the substantive proceedings are to be connected to South Korea. Further, it does not require the defendant to be the resident of South Korea. It just suffices only if the assets are located in South Korea. That said, for example, the US creditor pursuing an action in New York may apply to the court of South Korea for a freezing order on defendant’s bank account in Korean banks to restraint the defendant from dealing with, or disposing of, the funds.
In this regard, There was a case in Korean court where the provisional attachment order against the Korean stocks was issued by the Seoul Family Court as the security for a judgment soon to be obtained in the court of Virginia, USA. The defendant in the US proceeding, which was a divorce case where the plaintiff seek $6,700,000USD for her share of property division, filed an objection Continue reading
A U.S. distributor, or an agent, entered into a distributorship contract with Korean supplier (exporter) for certain goods. Of course, the U.S. distributor was thinking to resell the goods in U.S. market for a markup. But the problem broke up after the contract was duly singed and executed. With no reason, Korean supplier suddenly refused to sell the goods and rescinded the contract. Due to this unexpected turmoil by the foreign supplier, the U.S. distributor could not properly perform the reselling deals with the local warehouse stores, which the distributor had thought very lucrative. There would be no doubt that the act of Korean distributor constitutes a breach of distributorship agreement. But, the U.S. distributor did not pay anything, yet. The only loss they encountered was they lost a good deal with 3rd party by reason of the Korean supplier’s breach of contract. Now, the U.S. distributor tries to recover damages and loss of profits from the supplier in Korea which they suffered from the failure of the reselling deal with the local warehouse stores. In this case, can the U.S. distributor prevail in Korean court and under Korean law?
The key legal issue would be whether the Korean supplier knew of the fact that the distributor had completed their negotiation with 3rd party for the resale agreement. According to the ruling from the Supreme Court of South Korea, if the supplier knew of the fact, the supplier is liable for the distributor’s loss relating to failure or non-performance of the resale agreement with 3rd party. By contrast, Continue reading
Let’s say you obtained damages recovery judgment from a U.S. court against a Korean in the states. But soon after you got excited for the winning judgment, you found he has no assets in the states to fulfill your judgment. This could also happen in a litigation between U.S. citizens in a U.S. court where the losing defendant moved to South Korea and there are no assets left in the U.S. You might have spent quite large amount of legal fees to win the judgment already, but you think your judgment is now in great peril to be useless. This horrible situation might frustrate you.
But, don’t worry too much. You can enforce your duly obtained U.S judgment in Korea. If you are sure the defendant has enough assets to cover your claims in the judgment and your legal fees, you can file for an enforcement order for foreign judgment to a Korean court.
According to Article 218 of Civil Procedure Act of South Korea, a final and conclusive judgement by a foreign court shall be recognized and enforceable in Korea, when all the following requirements are met:
- the foreign court which issued the judgment had a jurisdiction over the case consistent with the principles of jurisdiction under Korean law and relevant international treaty;
- the defeated party received, in a timely manner, a service of complaint and summons by lawful method excluding a service by public notice, or that she responded to the lawsuit Continue reading
Let’s assume a creditor has a monetary claim against a debtor in Korea but the debtor refuses to pay it. The creditor would proceed to file a lawsuit to get a judgment to collect his claim. Unfortunately, however, the chances are that, knowing the complaint was filed, the debtor would try to conceal or transfer his assets to evade from the judgment to be made later. This shows why provisional attachment is highly required to secure the judgment to be obtained.
Provisional attachment is a judicial measure available to anyone who has a monetary claim to lock down certain assets to keep the debtor from selling or giving them away until the court issues a judgment on the merit. The creditor can, and usually does, seek a provisional remedy before she files a complaint on the merit. So, this is a very powerful weapon for the creditor. For example, as many Korean creditors do, if the creditor succeeds in putting a provisional attachment on the debtor’s bank account, the debtor would not be able to use the money and could face several penalties regarding its banking/financing transactions with the bank. This could heavily deteriorate the ability for a small company to conduct business, which makes the debtor Continue reading
In South Korea, the immigration office may remove or deport from South Korea any person who breached the Immigration Control Act(“ICA”) of South Korea. Any person who is released after receiving a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment may be deported by the deportation order as well.
When the immigration officer reasonably finds a foreigner falls under the requirements for the deportation and she might run away, the officer can detain her with the approval from the head of immigration office. The duration of detention cannot exceed 10 days, which can be renewed up to 10 more days. During the detention, the officer interviews and decides whether to deport the individual or not.
When the immigration officer decides to deport a foreigner, the officer shall deliver the deportation order to the foreigner and immediately enforce him to leave South Korea. But, when the individual files a claim for refugee protection, the deportation order cannot be executed until the refugee claim is decided by the Korean authority.
Then, how can you appeal the deportation order issued by the Korean immigration office? There are two ways to stop the deportation. First, Continue reading
Basically Korean labor Law doesn’t regulate employee’s having concurrent and/or additional job. However, most employment agreements(EA) prohibit employees from having additional jobs. So there have been many cases where employers fire employees based on his or her breach of prohibition of additional job clause in EA.
In this regard, the court’s standpoint is that as having additional job is a matter of privacy Continue reading
It is reported that Mr. Matthew Deakin, the president of the HSBC Korea, said on last Wednesday that HSBC Holdings Plc had no plan to acquire a local Korean bank for now. Last year, HSBC walked away from the deal with the Lone Star, a U.S. private equity fund, which provided HSBC the right to buy 51 percent stake of Korea Exchange Bank due to the global financial crisis and continued legal disputes surrounding the 2003 purchase of the bank by Lone Star Funds. (Here is a related previous post)
Things have changed. The Seoul Central District Court in last November ruled the purchase legal, and as the financial markets are now stabilizing. But Mr. Deakin, at the press conference which took place for the purpose of introducing the bank’s new Emerging Markets Index, said “right now, we have no interest in any acquisition of Korean banks”.
Here is a related news article.