[Featured Work] Criminal and civil litigation related to foreign joint venture agreements
Date 2024.02.05
Hit 521
Background
Company A, which was planning to open a Korean restaurant in a luxury resort overseas, discussed a joint venture with Company B, a Korean restaurant franchisor, to carry out a Korean restaurant business.
The joint venture was terminated during the interior construction of the Korean restaurant due to disagreements over the distribution of equity and governance of the Korean restaurant.
As B, the contractee of the interior construction contract, did not pay the contractor, A paid the contractor instead of B and completed the interior construction.
When a Korean restaurant created by Company A becomes successful overseas, Company B files criminal charges against Company A for fraud and trade secret infringement, and also files a civil lawsuit against Company A for return of investment and unjust enrichment.
As the CEO of Company A lives abroad, he is unable to receive the lawsuit documents such as the civil lawsuit complaint, and the case is served by public notice, and the judgment in favor of Company A is confirmed.
Company B initiates enforcement proceedings against Company A's property using the confirmed civil judgment as a source of enforcement.
Scope of Practice
Police and prosecution investigations, including legal review of fraud and trade secret infringement, submission of defense opinions, and participation in investigations.
Responded to enforcement proceedings, including applying for an injunction against Company A's property.
Responded to civil litigation, including filing subsequent supplement of appeal against a civil judgment that was finalized by public notice and proving the non-existence of a joint venture agreement and unjust enrichment of Company A.
Results and Effects
ELPS proved that there was no intent to defraud, no fraudulent behavior, and no damage to B by proving that the joint venture between A and B was terminated and that A paid for the expenses owed by B. ELPS also proved that the information provided by B for the Korean restaurant business was not important information subject to trade secret infringement and obtained a dismissal of charges from the prosecution.
In addition, ELPS obtained a court-ordered injunction to preserve Company A's real estate, which was about to be auctioned.
Despite the difficulty in obtaining relevant documents, ELPS won the court's decision to allow the appeal, proving that no joint venture was established between Company A and Company B, and that Company A did not receive any unjust enrichment from Company B. On appeal, ELPS obtained a judgment reversing the original judgment and dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims.
Company B appealed, but ELPS found that the reason for B's appeal has grounds of discontinuance of trial, and the civil case was confirmed by the Supreme Court with no further hearing.
Based on the finalized judgment, ELPS lifted all foreclosures on Company A's property and received legal fees from Company B for the appeal.
