»:;"=; gt# :-. §" § Taw L
;T. . t
Qs.Rx-~
!%=s'+"'1'**-'"x"'§ 'Fl "*L§ :+ -l = »*l f "H a-=
U Q ; x e ...fu* 1"\&¢» 1 ;:. . 5 % *.,to, ?,; ? "f * "-5ll¢i 3 .\1
EQ; JEL 83
_» ». a* »
£g!§?1y
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
COURT OF
OF GUAM
GUAM
EUNMI PARK EUNMI PARKand and GREENCORP, CIVIL CASE NO. CV0337-24
Plaintiffs,
DECISION DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING vs. MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE LINE LINE CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Eunmi Eunmi Park
Park and Greencorp
Greencorp move
move for the Court to take take judicial
judicial notice of the
Seoul High High Court's Court's final
finaljudgment
judgment related
related to
to this
this matter
matter and move for the court to and move to recognize the
judgment for reasons reasonsof
of international
internationalcomity.
comity. Specifically,
Specifically, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffsrequest
request the
the Court:
Court: 1)
1) take
take
judicial notice of ofthe
the January 24, 2024
January 24, 2024judgment
judgmentof
ofthe
theSeoul
SeoulHigh
High Court,
Court, 2)
2) recognize
recognize the
Korean Korean judgment pursuant pursuantto
tothe
theprinciples
principles of
of international comity, 3)
3) confirm
confirm that
that Greencorp
made substantial capital made substantial capital investments investmentsin
in Line
Line Corporation,
Corporation, 4)
4) confirm
confirm that
that the
the securities transfer
agreement dated dated January
January2,2,2007
2007isisinvalid
invalidand
andwithout
withoutlegal
legaleffect,
effect,and
and5)5)allow
allowPlaintiffs
Plaintiffs to
proceed with with adjudication of of their
their ownership interests in Defendant Line Corporation Corporation in
in this
action. Line Lineopposes opposesthis
this motion,
motion, arguing
arguing that
that Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs seek
seek more
more than
than recognition
recognition but
but to
enforce the the Korean Korean decision
decision on
on the
the issues governing Line Line Corporation,
Corporation, aa Guam
Guam entity who was
not party party to to the
theKorean
Koreanlitigation.
litigation. Upon review
review of
ofthe
the supporting materials,the supporting materials, theCourt CourtGRANTS
GRANTS
Plaintiff's PlaintiffsMotion Motionand
andtakes
takes judicial
judicial notice
notice of
ofthe
the Seoul
SeoulHigh
HighCourt's
Court's2024
2024 Judgment,
Judgment, however it
recognizes recognizes the the truth of
of the facts only as
as itrelates
relates to matters fully adjudicated by the the Seoul
Seoul High
Court.
.- 1 I"
QWWALv
F
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page2 Page
NOTICE
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1.
Greencorp filed suit against Changseok Changseok An in the Republic of Korea regarding ownership
of Line. The of The Korean Koreanproceedings
proceedings resulted
resulted in
in aa final
final judgment
judgment on
on January
January 24, 2024, which
declared a 2007 Securities Securities Transfer
Transfer Agreement
Agreement invalid. Deel. Counsel invalid. Deal. Counsel & Submission of Decl.
Submission of Deel. of
of
Hyun Suk Hyun Suk Kim Kim at at 22 (June 11, 2025).
2025). The 2024 Judgment was based on the Seoul High Court's
review of of the record from the trial trial proceedings
proceedings at
at the
the District Court. Id.
District Court. An appealed Id. An appealed the 2024
Judgment, however the Supreme Court did did not
not accept
accept the
theappeal. Id at 3. This appeal. Id. This rendered the
Seoul High Court's Seoul Court's judgment judgment final
final and not subject to further further review
review or
or modification.
modification. Id.
The 2024 Judgment determined determined that
that a 2007 Securities Transfer Agreement Agreement between Park
and An was invalid due to fraud. It determined fraud. It determined that that the Agreement
Agreement was
was conducted
conducted as
as business
activity in Korea and as such, the the laws
laws of
of Korea
Korea governed. Mot.
Mot. Judicial
Judicial Notice,
Notice, Ex.
Ex. A.
A. at
at 15
15
(Apr. 30, 2025). Seoul High 2025). The Seoul High Court, Court, however,
however, dismissed
dismissed claims
claims to
to confirm
confirm shareholder
shareholder rights
determined that
because it determined that it did not have adequate adequate jurisdiction
jurisdiction to
to assess
assess the validity of
of the First
Second Amendments and Second Amendments to to the
the Articles
Articles of
of Incorporation
Incorporation of
of Line
Line given
given that
that Line is incorporated
in Guam. Id, Ex. AA at Id., Ex. at 14.
14.
Following Following the Korea Korea court
court Judgment,
Judgment, Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs next
next filed
filed this suit against An and Line on
11, 2024, June 11, 2024, seeking seeking declaratory
declaratory and
and injunctive
injunctive relief. Compl. (June 11, 2024).
relief. Con 2024). Specifically,
Plaintiffs requested an Order declaring that Greencorp holds a 99.99% interest in Line, enjoining
An from taking corporate action, action, and for
for other
other relief. Court has dismissed An as a relief. This Court
defendant without prejudice due to to ineffective service of ineffective service of process. Order Granting Mot.
process. Dec. & Order
Dismiss Dismiss (July (July 11, 11, 2025).
RMA
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page Page 33
NOTICE
II. LAW AND AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs ask this Court to to take
take judicial
judicial notice
notice of the
the notarized
notarized and certified English
translation of the the 2024
2024 Judgment
Judgment and to
to recognize
recognize the 2024 Judgment under the principles of of
international comity. They They argue
argue that
that recognition
recognition under
under international
international comity
comity is warranted
because there is substantial substantial overlap
overlap between
between the parties in the the Korean proceedings and this
proceeding, proceeding, several of the parties are Korean individuals and entities, several of entities, the transactions were
governed by
executed and governed by Korean Korean law,
law, the Seoul
Seoul High
High Court
Court had
had proper
proper jurisdiction and
conducted fair proceedings, and and the
the judgment
judgment is
is final.
final. Id. at 4. They
Id at Theyfurther
further argue
argue that
will allow the Superior
recognition will Superior Court of Guam to adjudicate the proper ownership of Line
consistent with the settled facts facts in
in the
the 2024
2024 Judgment
Judgment and prevent Line from attempting to
relitigate issues already resolved. Id. at 5.
already resolved. They argue 5. They argue that
that this recognition would prevent
of factual issues and promote international judicial cooperation.
contradictory determinations of
Reply in Pls.' Reply in Supp.
Supp. Mot.
Mot. Jud. Not. at 5 (June 11, 2025). Plaintiffs state 2025). Plaintiffs state that they are not asking
for enforcement of the Korean judgment enforcement of judgment but rather acknowledgment of the validity and finality acknowledgment of
of the the Korean Korean judgment.
judgment. Id. at 2.
Id at
Line argues that Plaintiffs request more more than notice and recognition, but to instead
circumvent summary judgment circumvent and enforce judgment and enforce the
the 2024
2024 Judgment
Judgment on
on Line
Line who
who was
was not
not aa party
party to
the litigation in South Korea. With With regards
regards to
to judicial
judicial notice,
notice, itit argues
argues that
that Plaintiffs are asking
this Court to to "accept as
as true
true the
the facts
facts contained
contained in
in the
the Korea
Korea proceeding"
proceeding" and that it is improper
notice of
judicial notice to take judicial of the the truth
truthof
ofthe
thefacts
factswithin
withinother
othercourt
courtdocuments.
documents. Def.'
Def.'s Opp
Opp'n to
Mot. Jud. Not. at 3-4 (May 28, Pls.' Mot. 28, 2025). Line states 2025). Line states that the facts facts in
in the
the Korean
Korean judgment
judgment are
not settled, the the decision
decision is
is unclear,
unclear, and
andthe
thedecision
decisionmay
maynot
notbe
befinal. Id at 5.
final. Id. 5. Accordingly, it
argues that this this court
court should
should only
only take
take judicial
judicial notice
notice of the
the existence of the decision and not the
we
LIQHN
CV0337-24 DECISION DECISION AND
AND ORDER
ORDER GRANT1NG
GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page4 Page
NOTICE
truth of the the facts facts in
in the
the decision. Line ultimately decision. Line ultimately requests requests the
the Court
Court limit
limit judicial
judicial notice to the
fact that the the judgment
judgment exists and that
that the
the Korean
Korean court reached the judgment on the facts judgment based on
before that tribunal.
Line argues that international comity comity should not make a foreign court decision
if the decision is inconsistent with American law or enforceable in Guam if or repugnant repugnant to public
policy, that the Korean decision and certification of of the English language
language translation
translation is not
sufficient because exhibits are missing, and that Plaintiffs have not established the Judgment is
final. Id.atat9.9.ItItstates final. Id statesthat thatthe
theKorean
Koreanproceeding
proceedingisisnot
notparallel
parallel to
to this
this case
case because it involved
different parties parties and issues. Id.
and issues. Further,ititargues Id Further, arguesthat that because
because the
the questions
questions in
in this proceeding
involve Guam entities and laws, the Korean forum was inadequate and judicial efficiency will
not be served. Id. Finally, served. Id. Finally,Line Lineargues
argues that
that Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs are improperly requesting summary
judgment through through this motion. Id.
this motion. at 10.
Id at 10.
A. Judicial
Judicial Notice
The Court starts starts by
by addressing
addressing the
theissue
issueof
ofjudicial notice. Guam Rule of judicial notice. of Evidence 201
allows a court to take take judicial
judicial notice
notice of
of adjudicative
adjudicative facts.
facts. Specifically, 20l(b)
201 (b) states
states that a
'judiciallynoticed 'judicially noticedfact factmust
mustbe
beone
onenot
notsubj
subject
act to reasonable dispute in that it is is either
either (1)
(l)
generally known known within
within the
the territorial
territorial jurisdiction
jurisdiction of
of the
the trial
trial court or (2) capable of of accurate and
ready determination by resort to to sources
sources whose
whose accuracy
accuracy cannot
cannot reasonably
reasonably be
be questioned."
questioned." The
Guam Supreme Supreme Court Court has
has held
held that
that Rule 201
201 "does
"does not
not expressly
expressly prohibit taking judicial notice
of mle expressly allow it." People v. of another court's records, yet neither does the rule v. Diaz, 2007
,i 65.
Guam 33 ii "In taking 65. "In taking judicial
judicial notice,
notice, aa court may only court may onlytake
take judicial
judicial notice
notice of
ofthe
the truth
truth of
of facts
in in certain certain documents, documents, including orders,findings including past court orders, findings of offact
factand
andconclusions
conclusionsoflaw,
law, and
judgments. judgments. As for all other submissions in the file, a court should only take judicial notice of of the
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page 5 Page
NOTICE
In re
fact of their existence, and not the truth of the facts within." In reNA., NA.,2001 Guam771],r 58
2001Guam
(emphasis added).
Both parties have agreed that the Court has the authority to take judicial notice of of the
2024 Judgment. However, However,the
theparties
parties argue
argue about
about whether
whether the
the Court
Court may
may take of take judicial notice of
truth truth of of the the facts
facts within
within the
the Judgment.
Judgment. Here, the Court references the the Guam
Guam Supreme Court's
where itit explicitly
decision in In re NA. where explicitly stated stated that
that the
the Court
Court may
may take
take judicial
judicial notice
notice of
of the truth
of facts of facts in in certain certain documents
documents including
including judgments. Under this judgments. Under this guidance, guidance, the
the Court
Court disagrees
with Line in that it Ir isis limited
limited to
to taking
takingjudicial
judicial notice
notice of
of solely
solely the
the existence
existence of the
the judgment
judgment and
not the truth of the facts facts within.
numerous cases
Line cites numerous cases in in arguing
arguing that
that itit is improper
improper for
for the Court to take judicial
notice of the the truth
truth of
of the
the facts
factswithin
withinthe
thejudgment,
judgment,which
whichthe
theCourt
Courtnow
nowexamines.
examines. Line's cited
authorities, however, did not authorities, however, not involve judgments.
judgments. See,
See, e.g., In re NA., 2001 e.g., In 2001 Guam 7 (documents
in a Petition for Persons Persons in
in Need
Need of Service file);
file), People v. Diaz, 2007 Guam 3 (regarding taking v. Diaz,
notice of ofentire entire case files) 1; People v.
case fi1es)1, v. Corpuz, Corpus, 2019 Guam 11 (regarding taking judicial notice of of
"documents" "documents" from from two
two Superior
Superior Court
Court cases
cases that
that were
were not
not submitted
submitted as
as part of the Record on
Appeal). Line Line then thengoes
goes on
ontoto state
state that
that courts
courts can take judicial notice of foreign judgments but
cites UPS Supply Supply Chain
Chain Sols.,
Sols.,Inc.
Inc.v.v.Directed
Directed Elecs.,
Elect., Inc.,
Inc., 2022 WL 886128
886128 (C.D. Cal.
Cal. Jan.
Jan. 20,
2
2022), in arguing that courts courts should not take judicial judicial notice of
of the truth of the facts.
facts.2 This case
11 Additionally, Line cites Diaz in stating that courts are Additionally, Line are reluctant to to take take judicial
judicial notice ofof
proceedings in other other cases and in other courts, however however this statement
statement was about about appellate courts. The court in Diaz states "we have never courts. never articulated the standard standard for for determining determining when
when
may take we may take judicial judicial notice of matters notice of matters that
that were
were not
not presented
presented to to the
the trial
trial court." This Court
believes the cited cited statement
statement is
is not
not properly
properly applicable
applicable to
to this
this proceeding
proceeding as as this
this Court
Court is
is aa trial
rather than appellate court.
22 Line also cites AldiniAG Line also AG vv. Silvano, Silvaco, Inc.,
Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242829, 242829, *25-26
*25-26 (N.D.
(ND. Cal.
I
i'@ur>" \
I
M@lll\u
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page 6 NOTICE
took judicial notice of of the existence of four Korean judicial decisions Korean judicial decisions and and took
took notice
notice that the
facts therein are the basis for those those decisions,
decisions, however
however it opted not to take judicial notice of of the
truth of the the facts facts in
in the
the decisions. v. Warner decisions. There, the court referenced Gerritsen v. Warner Bros.
Bros. End.
Ent.
Inc., Inc., 111 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2015), in deciding not to take judicial notice of ad 1011, of the
truth of the facts.
facts. Gerristen dealt with a request to take judicial notice for a study from an
internet site on identity theft and a list, also also from an internet site, of data breach incidents
reported in California in the the last
last two
two years. court determined years. The court determined that that neither
neither of
of these
contained information
documents contained information "generally "generally known
knownwithin
withinthe
theterritorial
territorial jurisdiction
jurisdiction of
of the trial
court" or "capable of of accurate
accurate and
and ready
ready determination." The court determination." Id. The court pursued pursued an
an analysis
analysis of
of
taking judicial judicial notice of press press releases
releases and
and news
news articles.
articles. It ultimately determined determined that
that it could
not take judicial judicial notice of of the requested materials because it was "irrelevant, for purposes of
motion to
defendants' motion to dismiss, dismiss, that
that the infonnation
information in
in the
the press
press releases and news articles was
Id. atat 1029-1030.
publicly available." Id. 1029-1030. From Fromthis,
this, the
the Court
Court does
does not
not interpret
interpret that
that the decision in
UPS Supply Chain Sols., UPS Sols., Inc.
Inc. supports the notion that courts cannot take judicial notice of of the
tilth of truth of the facts in a foreign judgment, but but rather
rather that the court in that case opted not to, which is
Thesecases
permitted under Rule 201. These casesfurther furthersupport
supportthis
this Court
Court in
in its
its determination
determination that
that it is
permitted to take judicial notice of of the truth of the facts presented in the 2024 Judgment.
Court now turns to Line's The Court arguments that Line's arguments that the facts in the Korean judgment judgment are not
settled, the the decision decision is
is unclear,
unclear, and
and the
the decision
decision may
may not be
be final. Court disagrees with Line final. The Court
and finds that Line fails to support its fails to its assertion assertion adequately.
adequately. Beyond
Beyond its
its claim
claim that
that the exhibits the
Seoul High Seoul High Court Court relied
relied upon
upon are
are not
not supplied,
supplied, itit fails
fails to point to specific examples of of portions of
Aug. 3, 2022) to support this this argument,
argument, however
however the Court was unable to access a copy of of this
decision.
V
QQHwH L
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page 7 Page
NOTICE
the 2024 Judgment that that are
are unsettled,
unsettled,unclear,
unclear,or
orambiguous.
ambiguous. Def.'s
Def.'s Opp'n to Pls.' Mot.
Mot. Judicial
Notice at 5. Line Line argues
argues that
that the
the Court
Court cannot
cannot rely
rely on
on the
the 2024
2024 Judgment
Judgment as
as there are questions
to its finality, finality, which which requires
requires aa discussion
discussion on "what final, conclusive, and "what constitutes a final,
enforceable judgment judgment under
under the laws of
the laws of the
theRepublic
Republicof
ofKorea."
Korea." Id. Line cites Id at 6. Line cites Drew v. Mia Drew v. Mta
Taekwondo World, Taekwondo Inc., 2024 Cal.
World, Inc., Cal. Super.
Super.LEXIS
LEXIS 54733,
54733,*5-7
*5-7 (L.A.
(L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct. Mar. 18, City. Super. 18,
2024), which discusses how "different jurisdictions jurisdictions take different views of finality" such that
"the "the fact fact that Defendants have submitted submitted a purported judgment is alone insufficient to establish
that it was also final in the sense that it was not appealable or subject acttotomodification."
modification." Plaintiffs
have provided a declaration from Hyun Hyun Sum Kim, an
Suk Kim, an experienced lawyer licensed to practice in
Korea. Kim
the Republic of Korea. Kim declares declares that
that she
she has
has reviewed
reviewed the original 2024 2024 Judgment and
English translation English translation and and states that "the District Court and Seoul High Court had jurisdiction over
the matter, and the proceedings followed Korean civil procedure," "after the Seoul High Court
issued its judgment, there was a period for the parties to request a further appeal to the Korean
submitted aa request,
Supreme Court," and that "An submitted request, but but the Supreme
Supreme Court
Court did not accept the
Appeal." Decl.
Deel. CoLmsel Deal. of Hyun Counsel & Submission of Deel. Hyun Suk Kim at 2.
2. Kim
Kim states
states that based on
the judgment
her experience and knowledge, the judgment of the Seoul Seoul High
High Court is final
final and not subject
subj et to
further review or modification under Korean law and and that
that no more appeals or legal steps are
available. Id.
Id. at
at 3.
3. The
TheCourt
Courtfinds
finds that
that Kim's
Kim'sdeclaration
declarationprovides
provides adequate
adequate assurance
assurance that the
2024 Judgment is final and conclusive under the laws of of the Republic of
of Korea.
The Court finds that it can take judicial notice of of the 2024 Judgment and the truth of of the
facts in this Judgment.
Judgment. The
The Court
Court further
further finds that
that the 2024 Judgment is sufficiently settled and
final. Accordingly, Accordingly, the the Court
Court takes
takes judicial
judicial notice
notice of
ofthe
the 2024
2024 Judgment and turns to an analysis
a I "vII H."- L l@u@\@A1
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page 8 Page
NOTICE
on the issue of international comity to determine whether whether itit should take judicial notice of of the
truth of the facts facts contained therein.
International Comity
B. International
determine whether To determine whether the the Court
Court should
should take
take judicial
judicial notice
notice of
ofthe
the truth
truth of
of the facts
facts in the
2024 Judgment, the Court considers the parties' arguments with with respect
respect to international comity.
International comity is an abstention doctrine under which which aa court
court with jurisdiction defers to the
judgment of the foreign forum.
forum. Ungaro-Benages v.
v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227, 1227, 1237
(11th ltd Cir.
Cir. 2004).
2004). The decision to grant comity is within a court's discretion, and the burden of
proof to establish the proof the propriety propriety of
of comity
comity is
is on
on the moving party. Duff Duff&& Phelps,
Phelps, LLC v. Vitro
LLC v. Vitro
S.A.B. DeC. S.A.B. de V,18 C.V, 18F.F.Supp.
Supp.3d
ad375,
375,382
382(S.D.
(S.D.N.Y.
N.Y.2014).
2014). When
When deciding whether to defer to a
the task of
foreign forum, the of the court is "not "not to articulate a justification for the exercise of
jurisdiction but rather to to determine whether exceptional circumstances circumstances exist
exist that
that justify the
surrender of surrender of that jurisdiction."
jurisdiction." Tarazed
Tarazi v.v.Truehope Inc., 958 F. Supp. 2d Truehope Inc., 428,433 ad 428, 433 (S.D. N.Y.
2013).
Typically, questions of international international comity
comity arise
arise when
when two proceedings are happening
party seeking a stay or dismissal based on the proceedings in the simultaneously, resulting in a poNy
foreign forum. In Incoming
comingtoto that
that determination,
determination, courts
courts have considered
considered numerous
numerous factors
factors such as
the similarity of of parties and issues
issues involved in the foreign litigation, litigation; the promotion of of judicial
efficiency; the adequacy efficiency, adequacy of ofrelief
relief available
available in
in the alternative
alternative forum,
forum; issues
issues of
of fairness to and
convenience of convenience ofthe the parties,
parties, counsel, and witnesses, witnesses; the
the possibility
possibility of
of prejudice to any of
of the
parties; and the temporal sequence of parties, of the filing of of the actions. Goldnammer Goldhammer v.
v. Durkin
Dunkin' Donuts,
Inc., 59 F. Supp. 2d Inc., ad 248, 252-53 252-53 (D.
(D. Mass.
Mass. 1999). Some courts
1999). Some courts have
have simplified
simplified this
this analysis to
first look at U.S.
U.S. interests
interests (including
(including the location of the conduct in question, the nationality of of the
p I
Mn r
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page 9 Page
NOTICE
parties, the the character of the conduct in question, the foreign policy interests of of the United States,
and any public policy policy interests),
interests), foreign interests, interests, and the adequacy of the foreign forum.
forum.
Lawson v.v. Klondex KlondexMines
MinesLtd.,
Ltd, 450 F.
F. Supp.
Supp. 3d
ad 1057,
1057, 1073
1073(D.
(D. Nev.
Nev. 2020).
2020). Courts have,
have,
however, determined that "the "the parallel
parallel proceeding rule applies only until a judgment is reached
of the actions. After in one of After that that point,
point, the second
second forum
forum isis usually obliged obliged to
to respect the prior
adjudication of the matter.
matter. If
If the
the rules regarding
regarding enforcement of
of foreign judgments are followed
there will seldom be a case where parties parties reach
reach inconsistent
inconsistent judgments."
judgments." Laker Airways Airways Ltd.
Ltd v.
Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, Sabena, Belgian A irlines, 731 731 F.2d 909, 928-29 (D.C.
(D.C. Cir. 1984).
1984).
The Court finds finds the Nevada District Court's Court's guidance in Lawson v. Klondex Mines Ltd., Ltd.,
450 F. Supp. 3d 1057, insightful on this matter. Lawson addressed a motion to dismiss in ad 1057,
conjunction with a request to take take judicial
judicial notice of six documents, including an order from a
Canadian court.
court. When When determining
determining whether
whether to
to take
take judicial
judicial notice
notice of
ofthe
the Canadian
Canadian order,
order, the
Nevada court stated stated that
that "because
"because the
theSupreme
SupremeCourt
Courtof
ofBritish
BritishColumbia's
Columbia's order[
order [...]
... is directly
related to the matters at issue issue in this
this case,
case, and
and because,
because, as the court finds below, international
comity dictates that the court court must
must give
give full
full and conclusive effect to the Canadian judgment, the
court takes takesjudicial judicial notice
notice of
ofthe
theorder."
order." Id.
Id at 1071. Further
Further in its international comity analysis
court states the court statesthe theCanadian
Canadianjudgment
judgment"will
"will be
be given
given full
full and conclusive
conclusive effect."
effect." Id.
Id. at
at 1080.
1080.
of Parties and Issues
1. Similarity of
The Court Court starts by
by determining whether
whether there
there is
is sufficient similarity between between the parties
and issues, such that the the 2024
2024 Judgment
Judgment directly relates to to the
the matters
matters at
at issue
issue in
in this
this case.
case. Line
argues that the the Korean proceeding and this proceeding are not parallel, and comity should not
apply because the "Korean decision not "Korean decision not only only involved
involved different
different parties,
parties, but it involved different
issues." Def.'s issues." Def. 's Opp'n Opp'nto
to Pls.'
Pls.' Mot.
Mot. Judicial
Judicial Notice
Notice at
at 9. Proceedings
Proceedings are
are parallel
parallel when
I Win* H U u
JHLJHMHHL L
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page 10 Page 10
NOTICE
"substantially the same parties are litigating substantially the the same issues simultaneously in two
fora." Tarazed fore." Tarazi v.
v. Truehope,
Truehope, 958 F. Supp.
Supp. 2d
ad 428,
428, 433
433 (S.D.N.Y.
(S.D.N.Y. 2013).
2013). A finding of proceedings
being parallel does not require that the parties parties and
and issues
issues be
be identical,
identical, however,
however, they must be
"substantially the same."
same." Id. at
at 434,
434; Royal and Sun
Sun Alliance
Alliance Ins.
Ins. Co. of Canada v.
Co. of v. Century Inter.
Inter.
Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88, Arms, Inc., 88, 94 94 (2d
(ad Cir.
Cir. 2006).
2006).
The parties in the Korean proceeding proceeding are Greencorp 3 as are Greencorp3 as the Plaintiff Plaintiff and An as the
Defendant; here, Defendant, here, the the parties
parties are Greencorp and Park as the Plaintiffs and Line as the Defendant.
Park as
Courts have held that the parties need not be identical, however relevant test is whether the however the relevant
v. EMIApriZ
parties are substantially similar. Ole Media Management, L.P. v. EM/ April Music, Inc., Inc., No. 12
12
Civ. 7249, 2013 2013 WL 2531277,
2531277, at
at *3
*3 (S.D.N.Y
(S.D.N.Y June
June 10,
10, 2013). "Generally, parties in two cases 2013). "Generally,
similar' for
are 'substantially similar' for the the purposes
purposes of
of this analysis when
when they
they are
are affiliates
affiliates or have a
similarly close relationship." Tarazed, Tarazi, 958 F.
F. Supp.
Supp. 2d
ad at 434.
434. Additionally, "parties are are 'similar'
for the purposes of international comity when one one party
party is
is aa subsidiary of
of the other or one party
has a substantial substantial ownership ownership interest
interest in
in the
the other." com N V v.
other." Id. (quoting Credicom v. Colony Colony
Credicom L.P., Credicom LP., No 99 Civ. 10486, 2000 2000 WL
WL 282968,
282968, at
at *2
*2 (S.D.N.Y
(S.D.N.Y Mar.
Mar. 16,
16, 2000)).
2000)). Given
that Park was listed in the the 2024
2024 Judgment
Judgment under Greencorp as the Representative Executive
believes that there is substantial similarity between the plaintiffs of Director, the Court believes of the two
At the
proceedings. At the time time of
ofthe
the Korean
Korean proceedings An held proceedings An held 999,999 999,999 shares
shares of
of Line and Park
held 11 share. Dec.
Dec. &&Order
OrderGranting
GrantingPrelim.
Prelim.Inc.
Inj. (Apr.
(Apr. 8, 2025). 4 Given that An has a 8, z025>.4
33 The The Court Court notes notes that
that the
the 2024
2024 Judgment
Judgment lists
lists Eunmi
Eunmi Park asas the
the Representative
Representative Executive
Director for the Plaintiff Greencorp. Mot. Judicial Greencorp. Mot. Judicial Notice, Notice, Ex.
Ex. AA at 2.
44 Compare Con Compl. 116, 8,8,11-15,
pl. 11116, 11-15,18-19, 18-19,2121(June
(June11,
11,2024)
2024)with
with Line
Line Corp.'s Answer
Answer 111
11 (Sept.
18, 2024). 18, Park verified 2024). Park verified the allegations in the Complaint.
!r""` 11
I LL v
l
JOH NA
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL Page 11 Page 11
NOTICE
"substantial ownership interest"
interest" in
in Line,
Line, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that the patties
parties are substantially similar
between the between the defendants defendants for
for the purposes of international comity.
Line next argues that this this proceeding
proceeding and the Korean proceeding involve different issues.
However, Line fails to specify fails to specify how
how the
the issues
issues are
are different.
different. Def.'s Opp'n
Opp'n to
to Pls.' Mot.
Mot. Judicial
Notice at 9.
9. Given
Given that
that the 2024 Judgment
Judgment deals
deals with
with the 2007 Securities Transfer Agreement Agreement
which which Line relies upon in its Answer as a defense defense to recognizing Plaintiffs' ownership interests,
the Court finds that there there are
are substantial
substantial similarities
similarities in
in issues
issues between
between the
the two
two proceedings for
the purposes of of international comity as it pertains to the matters adjudicated in the 2024
Judgment.
2. 2. Deference to the
the Korean
Korean Judgment
As the Court has established that the the parties and
and issues
issues in
in both
both the
the Korean
Korean proceeding
proceeding and
this proceeding are substantially similar, similar, the
the Court
Court next
next determines
determines whether to recognize the
the facts truth of the facts in in the
the 2024
2024 Judgment.
Judgment. The
The Court
Court starts first highlighting starts by first highlighting how the 2024
Judgment Judgment is is specific primarily to to the
the 2007
2007 Securities
Securities Transfer
TransferAgreement.
Agreement. The Seoul High
Court dismissed dismissed claims claims that
that dealt with the articles of of incorporation of
of Line Corporation, as these
issues are governed by Guam law. Thus, Thus, the
the Court's
Court's decision
decision to
to recognize
recognize the
the truth
truth of
of the facts
in the 2024 Judgment under under the principles of
of international comity extends solely to the issues
adjudicated by the the Seoul
Seoul High
High Court.
Court
As the 2024 Judgment Judgment has
has concluded,
concluded, the
the Court
Court believes
believes itit is
is appropriate
appropriate to "respect the
the matter"
prior adjudication of the matter" and to to give
give "full
"full and conclusive effect" to the 2024 Judgment.
Laker Airways Airways Leaf, Ltd., 731 at 929;
731 F.2d at 929; Lawson, 450 F. Supp. 3d ad at
at 1075-76,
1075-76, 1080.
1080. Because of
Because of
appropriate to
this, the Court finds it appropriate to recognize recognize the truth
truth of the
the facts
facts within
within the
the 2024
2024 Judgment.
Judgment.
Plaintiffs request that the Court confirm that Greencorp Greencorp made substantial capital investments investments in
r' my r
EL
CV0337-24 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL 12 Page 12
NOTICE
Corporation, confirm Line Corporation, confirm that that the securities transfer agreement agreement dated
dated January 2, 2007 is invalid
and without legal effect, and allow Plaintiffs to to proceed with adjudication of of their ownership
interests in Line Corporation in this action. The Court action. The Court limits
limits its
its recognition
recognition of
of the truth of
of the
facts in the the judgment judgment as it pertains
pertains to
to issues
issues adjudicated
adjudicated and
and decided
decided by the Seoul High Court,
as it pertains the mainly as the validity validity of
of the
the 2007
2007 Securities
Securities Transfer
TransferAgreement.
Agreement. The Court finds
that this includes the final final order
order in
in the
the 2024
2024 Judgment
Judgment that "the foreign currency securities
transfer agreement dated January 2, 2007 regarding the overseas investment in foreign currency
securities of Line Corporation, Corporation, a local
local company
company in Guam, is invalid" and the accounting of
financial investments made in Line. Mot.
Mot. Judicial
Judicial Notice,
Notice, Ex.
Ex. A
A at
at 1,
1, 5-8.
III.CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court judicial notice of the existence of the 2024 Judgment and Court finds that it can take judicial
truth of the the facts facts therein
therein from
from the
the Seoul
Seoul High
High Court. The parties
Court. The parties and
and issues
issues presented in the
proceeding and Korean proceeding and this this proceeding
proceeding are
are substantially
substantially similar
similar such
such that
that itit is appropriate under
the principles of international international comity
comity to
to defer
defer to
to the
the 2024
2024 Judgment.
Judgment. However, this deference is
limited to matters adjudicated by the Seoul High High Court,
Court, and
and as
as such
such finds
finds that
that the 2007 Securities
Transfer Agreement Agreement is invalid.
SO ORDERED, ORDERED, 23
23 July
July 2025.
2025. - .,. .
~~
HON. E~}'~M. HO _y
..~
~~~ M. IRIART
I~TE E
Judge, Sggerlor Co~rt Judge, S~m-~rior Coort of Guam --:;,., - .
Appearing Attorneys Appearing Attorneys: Shannon Taitano, Esq., Camacho & Taitano LLP, for Plaintiffs Shannon Plaintiffs Eunmi Eunmi Park and Greencorp
Michael J. Berman, Esq., Berman Law Firm, for Defendant Defendant Line Corporation
r
mow n Mi
r
I
=.l