HEA SOOK HAN v. CINDY E. JANG

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

HEA SOOK HAN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CINDY E. JANG,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

December 22, 2015

Submitted October 19, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Messano and Simonelli.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-6208-11.

Rotolo, Rotolo & Yi, attorneys for appellant (P. Cliff Rotolo, on the brief).

David Fronefield, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Cindy E. Jang appeals from the July 31, 2014 judgment in the amount of $26,000 entered in favor of plaintiff Hea Sook Han following a remand. We affirm.

We need not recite in detail the history of this case and incorporate herein the facts set forth in Han v. Jang, No. A-2041-12 (App. Div. June 16, 2014) (slip op. at 1-5). Briefly stated, the parties were involved in a so-called "investment club" or "savings club" known as a Kye. Defendant conceded that the Kye was not illegal, but argued that the alleged contract between her and plaintiff was unenforceable because the Kye violated public policy and the laws and rules promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. 6050I, the New Jersey's Uniform Securities Law, N.J.S.A. 49:3-47 to -83, and the State Uniform Tax Procedures Law, N.J.S.A. 54:48-1 to -7, and N.J.S.A. 17:16A-2. Id. at 6. We reversed the jury award to plaintiff and remanded for the judge to determine whether, as a matter of law, the contract was unenforceable because the Kye violated the law or was against public policy, or whether it was inappropriate to apply Western law to this uniquely Asian economic model in which the parties voluntarily engaged. Id. at 9.

On remand, the trial judge held that defendant failed to establish that the Kye violated the law and failed to provide any evidence that the Kye was against public policy. The judge found that the Kye was not illegal, it had had an enforceable purpose, and it provided procedures in the event of a default. The judge also found that the contract was not illegal or unenforceable. The judge concluded as follows

The Kye reflects a cornerstone of the Korean community in which the established members of the community make private loans to new members. . . . The Kye was a private agreement to pool funds to be lent to borrowers for legitimate business purposes.

The [d]efendant's contention that some of the members may not have properly accounted for the income from the Kye on their tax returns is a collateral issue that does not affect the validity of the Kye. Similarly, failure to register with a government agency does not make the contract unenforceable. The [d]efendant has been unable to overcome the presumption that the Kye was legal.

On appeal, defendant reiterates the arguments she made before the trial judge. We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion beyond these brief comments. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The parties used principles of private micro-loans that were intertwined with Korean cultural norms and traditions. They were well-aware of what they were doing and voluntarily engaged in the Kye. Defendant presented no evidence that the Kye violated the law or was against public policy and the judge implicitly concluded that it was appropriate to apply Western legal principles to the analysis.

Affirmed.