Kim

Kim v. Koo CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 2026G064063California3,478 words

Opinion

Opinion

Delaney, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I.

COMPLAINT AND ANSWER

On January 14, 2021, Kim filed a complaint against Koo, seeking enforcement of a $350,000 promissory note. The complaint alleged Kim and Koo created Damon Capital, LLC (Damon Capital) to operate a high-end bed and mattress store. Subsequently, Kim agreed to sell his 50 percent interest in Damon Capital to Koo. The complaint alleged the purchase price was $850,000. However, Kim could only obtain a $500,000 loan from Wells Fargo Bank. To facilitate the loan, on or about August 31, 2015, the parties executed a Transfer Agreement, a $500,000 promissory note, and a $350,000 promissory note. The Transfer Agreement and the $500,000 note were dated August 31, 2015, and the $350,000 note was dated September 1, 2015. The complaint further alleged that after the Transfer Agreement and the $500,000 note were submitted to Wells Fargo, the bank expressed concerns. The Transfer Agreement and the $500,000 note were revised to address Wells

2 Fargo’s concerns, but the $350,000 note was left unchanged. However, Koo never made any payments on the note. On April 1, 2021, Koo filed an answer generally denying the allegations and raising numerous…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.