Kim v. Son
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
2009 WL 597232 (2009)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Stephen Son (defendant) was the sole owner of Netouch International Inc. (Netouch), and was the majority owner and the operator of MJ, Inc. (MJ). Jinsoo Kim (plaintiff) invested in MJ and loaned funds to both MJ and Netouch. Son did not personally guarantee any of Kim’s loans or his investment. The businesses eventually failed without Kim recouping his money. In October 2004, Son and Kim met at a sushi bar and became intoxicated. Son pricked his finger with a pin and wrote to Kim, in blood, “Sir, please forgive me. Because of my deeds you have suffered financially. I will repay you to the best of my ability.” Later that day, Son wrote in pen that he promised to repay Kim, to the best of his ability, approximately 170,000,000 won (the currency of South Korea). In June 2006, Kim sued Son for defaulting on the “promissory note.” After a bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Son on the grounds that the “blood agreement” was not an enforceable contract. Kim appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Leary, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
