1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

James C. Hann, Esq. # 215778 LAW OFFICES OF TAK S. CHANG 1530 The Alameda, Suite 305 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 975-9000 voice (408) 975-9100 fax Attorneys for Defendants KTVNNC, Corp.; Korea Television Networks of San Francisco, Inc.; Northern California Korean Community Center of Education and Culture; KTVN, Inc.; Kumcha Chang; and Kee Ahng Sung.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DIGITALL WORLD CO., LTD.; AND DLT ) ELECTRONICS, ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) KTVNNC, CORP.; KOREA TELEVISION ) NETWORKS OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.; ) ) NORTHERN CALIFORNIA KOREAN COMMUNITY CENTER OF EDUCATION ) AND CULTURE; KTVN, INC.; KUMCHA ) CHANG; KEE AHNG SUNG individually and) doing business as KTN-TV and DOES 1-20, ) ) Inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) I. INTRODUCTION On or about May 2006, Plaintiffs and Defendants Korea Television Networks of San Francisco, Inc. (KTN-TV) and Kee Ahng Sung entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiffs would purchase KTN-TV for $1,500,000.00. As part of that transaction, KTN-TV would purchase the Set-Top Boxes and return a portion of the payment price of the sale of KTN-TV 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO RIGHT
TO ATTACH ORDER AND WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

Case No.: 1-07-CV-083621 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

Date: May 31, 2007 Time: 9:00 AM Dept: 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

equal to the invoiced price. On or about August 2006, Defendants received said Set-Top Boxes despite the inflated prices. Plaintiffs have not paid the purchase price of KTN-TV. This payment was to be made prior to the return payment for the Set-Top Boxes. Defendants have been damaged in clear excess of the $80,500.00 that Plaintiffs are claiming. II. DISCUSSIONS A. Notice of Opposition Against Issuance of Right to Attach Order.

A defendant who desires to oppose the issuance of the right to attach order sought by plaintiff or who objects to the amount sought to be secured by the attachment must file and serve on plaintiff, no later than five court days prior to the date set for the hearing, a notice of opposition stating the grounds on which defendant opposes the issuance of the order or objects to the amount sought to be secured by the attachment. The notice must be accompanied by an affidavit supporting any factual issues raised and points and authorities supporting any legal issues raised. A claim of exemption pursuant to Section 484.070 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be included in the notice of opposition (Code Civ. Proc. 484.060(a), (b)). B. Required Court Determination.

At the hearing on the plaintiffs' application for a right to attach order, the court may issue such order only if it finds, among other findings, that the plaintiff has established the probably validity of the claim on which the attachment is based (Code Civ. Proc. 484.090(a)(2)). Plaintiffs have presented evidence of a sales contract for Set-Top Boxes. However, what Plaintiffs fail to mention is that transaction was part of a sale of KTN-TV. As a condition precedent for payment of the Set-Top Boxes, Plaintiffs have failed to pay the agreed to amount for the purchase of KTN-TV. It is evident that Plaintiffs inflated the prices of the Set-Top Box and sold them in anticipation of a sale of KTN-TV. If Defendants were to prevail in their crosscomplaint (which Defendants intend to file immediately), their claim would well exceed any claim that Plaintiffs have. C. Strict Construction of Attachment Law.

2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO RIGHT

TO ATTACH ORDER AND WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Proceedings by attachment are statutory and special, and the provisions of the statute must be strictly followed or no rights will be acquired thereunder (Sousa v. Lucas (1909) 156 Cal. 460, 463, 105 P. 413). D. Objection to Undertaking.

A beneficiary on noticed motion may object to an undertaking on the ground(s) that the sureties are insufficient and/or the amount of the undertaking is insufficient (Code Civ. Proc. 995.210(b), 995.920, 995.930). E. Undertaking Required before Writ Issued Filed by Plaintiff

Before a writ of attachment is issued, the plaintiff must file an undertaking to pay the defendant any amount the defendant may recover for wrongful attachment (Code Civ. Proc. 489.210; Vershbow v. Reiner (1991) 231 Cal.App.3rd 879, 882-883). In the instant case, plaintiff has not filed any undertaking. F. Required Court Determination Related to Undertaking.

If the court determines that an undertaking is insufficient, it must specify in what respect it is insufficient and order that an undertaking with sufficient sureties and in a sufficient amount be given within five days. If a sufficient undertaking is not given within the time required by the court order, all rights obtained by giving the undertaking immediately cease and the court may on ex parte motion order the cessation of those rights (Code Civ. Proc. 995.210(b), 995.960(b)(1). G. Amount of Undertaking Generally.

Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 489.220 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amount of an undertaking filed pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 489.210 through 489.320 must be ten thousand dollars ($10,000) (Code Civ. Proc. 489.220(a)). H. When Probable Recovery Exceeds Amount of Undertaking.

If, on objection to the undertaking, the court determines that the probable recovery for wrongful attachment exceeds the amount of the undertaking, it must include in its order that the amount of the undertaking be increased to the amount it determines to be the probable recovery for wrongful attachment if it is ultimately determined that the attachment was wrongful. (Code 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO RIGHT
TO ATTACH ORDER AND WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Civ. Proc. 489.220(b); see Code Civ. Proc. 996.010). The plaintiffs' claim is approximately $80,500.00. This amount well exceeds the general undertaking of $10,000.00 pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Code 489.220(a). Defendants intend to file a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs for damages in amount which clearly exceed their claim. As such, $10,000.00 is not enough to protect against the damages incurred if the attachment was wrongful. III. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs breached the KTN-TV Purchase and thus Defendants were damaged in amounts well exceeding Plaintiffs' claims. Thus, it is unlikely that Plaintiffs will prevail in their claim after the cross-complaint has been filed. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have failed to show why collection efforts after a possible judgment would be meaningless. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintffs' Motion for Issues of Writs of Attachments. In the alternative, Defendants ask that the undertaking be at least $80,500.00. DATED: Law Offices of Tak S. Chang

BY:

___________________________ JAMES C. HANN, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants KTVNNC, Corp.; Korea Television Networks of San Francisco, Inc.; Northern California Korean Community Center of Education and Culture; KTVN, Inc.; Kumcha Chang; and Kee Ahng Sung.

4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO RIGHT

TO ATTACH ORDER AND WRITS OF ATTACHMENT