Joung v. Shin

Filed 2/20/07  Joung v. Shin CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            Plaintiff Ge ASH Joung (hereafter, appellant) filed suit against An Sik Shin and his real estate corporation, Kor-Am Property and Investments, Inc. (together, respondent), contending that respondent breached fiduciary duties and duties of fair dealing towards her when he acted as her real estate broker and investment advisor in the course of several real estate transactions.  A bench trial was held spanning eight days, during which the trial court carefully considered the testimonies of the principal parties in this case.  The court then issued a detailed statement of decision resolving all credibility issues against appellant and finding that appellant had failed to carry her evidentiary burden of showing the existence of a duty of care or a fiduciary duty, or any breach of those duties. 

            On appeal from the judgment, appellant contends that the trial court's findings were in error because the existence of a duty was established as a matter of law, and because evidence supported findings that duties were breached in the various transactions.  After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that it supports the judgment, and we therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

            Appellant came to this country from her native Korea in 1982 or 1983.  In Korea she had attended college and had studied English.  She testified that she could read English and was able to understand and speak some English.[1]  In Korea, she had purchased two pieces of real estate.  When she moved to this country, she also purchased and sold real estate.  She purchased a home in San Francisco, and then later sold that property and purchased a mixed-use property in San Francisco, plus another residence.  She also purchased commercial properties in Oakland, including a restaurant, and she purchased another restaurant in San Jose.  All of these transactions occurred before the events leading to this lawsuit.  In many of these transactions, appellant did not use a real estate agent. 

            In 2000, appellant suffered a brain aneurism and underwent reparative surgery in June of 2000.  At times she still felt some lingering effects of these health problems during 2001, the period of time that is relevant to this lawsuit.

            Some time in February of 2001, appellant met In Sik Shin at her restaurant in San Jose.  According to In Sik Shin, he and appellant became romantically involved.  They lived together for approximately a year and were planning on getting married.  During this time he also took over managing some of her business affairs, including the San Jose restaurant.  In Sik Shin operated a travel business and had an office next to his brother An Sik Shin (respondent) in a building owned by respondent on El Camino Real in Santa Clara.  In Sik Shin also participated in several â€