SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3889-18T1

KOREA TRADE INSURANCE

CORPORATION, a/k/a K-SURE

as assignee of CK SYSTEMS, INC. 

and INDUSTRIAL BANK OF

KOREA, YEOKGOK BRANCH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NUVICO INC., IN JIN CHOI,

and JUNIE PARK,

Defendants-Respondents.

______________________________

Submitted April 27, 2020 – Decided June 11, 2020

Before Judges Messano and Ostrer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-5355-18.

Kim & Bae, PC, attorneys for appellant (Andrew C. 

Miller, on the briefs).

Sung Jin Lee, attorney for respondents In Jin Choi and 

Junie Park

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3889-18T1

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (KTIC), also known as KSURE, appeals from the Law Division's April 4, 2019 order that dismissed 

plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.

1

 Plaintiff, "a governmental entity 

of the Republic of Korea which insures risks arising out of the import and export 

of goods[,]" alleged that it had reimbursed Korean-based exporter, CK Systems, 

Inc. (CK), and its negotiating bank, Industrial Bank of Korea, Yeokgok Branch, 

$480,390 after Nuvico, Inc., a New Jersey-based insolvent corporation in which 

defendants, In Jin Choi and Junie Park, corporate officers, failed to pay for 

goods CK shipped to Nuvico on credit. CK and its bank executed a letter of 

assignment assigning their rights to plaintiff.

2

 Plaintiff asserted claims of breach 

of contract, fraud, and other causes of action against defendants.

1

 Plaintiff's complaint states it is also known as "K-SURE," which we adopt 

throughout this opinion, even though the record contains multiple references to 

other spellings with varying punctuation. The only exception is our reference 

to a New York business entity affiliated with plaintiff. There, we use the 

spelling and punctuation as specifically contained in the record.

 

2

 Nuvico never appeared in the Law Division and has not participated in this 

appeal. We recite the facts alleged in plaintiff's amended complaint. See, e.g., 

Banco Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 166 (2005) (holding that in 

considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "courts must 'assume 

the facts as asserted by plaintiff are true and give [it] the benefit of all inferences 

that may be drawn in [its] favor.'" (quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 

109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988))).
3

A-3889-18T1

This complaint was the third one filed by plaintiff. In 2016, identifying 

itself only as KTIC, plaintiff filed a virtually identical complaint (KTIC I). 

Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting plaintiff lacked standing 

because it was "not an assignee of any claims" under the purported letter of 

assignment, which was in favor of K-SURE, not KTIC. The Law Division judge 

granted defendants' motion. 

In a written opinion supporting the order, the judge relied on an 

unpublished order from the federal district court in the Western District of 

Pennsylvania cited by defendants. Ksure of N.Y. Corp. v. Raineater, LLC, No. 

13-124E, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3655 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2015). There, the 

federal district court dismissed a suit brought by Ksure of New York

Corporation (Ksure N.Y.), when it tried to substitute its parent company, KTIC, 

as the real party in interest. Id. at *1. The district court judge reasoned that 

Ksure N.Y. lacked standing, although the order dismissed the suit without 

prejudice to KTIC's "initiation of proceedings on its own behalf." Id. at *1–2.

The Law Division judge reasoned that the federal district court had 

"determined that K[-]SURE and [KTIC] are two separate corporations." Despite 

a certification from KTIC's "Deputy Representative" asserting that KTIC and KSURE were one and the same, the judge concluded plaintiff's "claims that it is 
4

A-3889-18T1

the same entity as K[-]SURE are unsubstantiated by any competent evidence[,]"

and "the undisputed facts reveal . . . [KTIC] is not an assignee or subrogee of 

the [underlying] agreement[.]"

3

Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, arguing that the judge had ignored 

evidence that K-SURE and KTIC were the same entity.4 Plaintiff supplied a 

copy of KTIC's articles of incorporation, which stated that KTIC was "[t]he full 

English name of K-S[URE.]" Nevertheless, the judge denied the motion. In a 

written statement of reasons, the judge recognized that "[p]laintiff presented 

new evidence and information which may, in fact, support a cause of action 

against [d]efendants under a properly named entity." Nevertheless, he reasoned 

that because plaintiff's "new evidence" was not that which "could not have 

[been] provided on the first application," and because the judge had sufficiently 

3

 The judge apparently credited defendants' assertion that the letter of 

assignment was between "CK . . . and a separate entity, K[-]SURE Corporation 

of New York . . . ." In fact, the letter of assignment, which was in the record, 

was between CK and K-SURE, not Ksure N.Y. Moreover, the letter of 

assignment provided that KTIC paid the assignors' insurance claim, and clearly 

stated that KTIC would be referred to throughout the balance of the letter of 

assignment as K-SURE.

4

 While it is unclear from the record at which point the confusion between KSURE and Ksure N.Y. arose, the record shows that in response to defendants' 

request for documents, plaintiff first provided Ksure N.Y.'s articles of 

incorporation.
5

A-3889-18T1

considered "[all] fact[s] previously submitted in the original motion[,]" plaintiff 

failed to meet its burden justifying reconsideration. The judge stated, "[n]othing 

in the court's decision is in any way intended to prohibit a refiling of the 

complaint identifying the proper entity or entities, as further identified on the 

record during oral argument." The order denying reconsideration expressly 

provided plaintiff with an opportunity to refile another complaint.

As a result, plaintiff filed a second complaint under a different docket 

number (KTIC II), identifying itself as "Korea Trade Insurance Corporation 

a/k/a K-SURE, as assignee of CK Systems, Inc. and Industrial Bank of Korea, 

Yeokgok Branch[.]" The complaint failed to include plaintiff's address, but it 

fully set forth with specificity the factual allegations underlying plaintiff's 

causes of action against defendants. 

Prior to filing an answer, defendants moved for a more definite statement,

see Rule 4:6-4(a), before a different judge than the judge assigned to KTIC I.

Defense counsel's certification supporting the motion posited the same claims

made during the KTIC I litigation, i.e., that KTIC was actually Ksure N.Y., the 

true assignee, and that the federal district court in Pennsylvania had already 

decided the issue. During oral argument, defense counsel contended a more 

definite statement was necessary so that defendants could "know who this 
6

A-3889-18T1

plaintiff is." He cited confusion about documents plaintiff furnished in the KTIC 

I litigation, and asked the judge to have "an officer or director of that company 

certify who this plaintiff is[.]" Repeating the statements made in the 

certification supporting the motion, counsel asserted, "It doesn't matter who 

[plaintiff is] really, because as long at the trial court granted summary judgment 

against [it] in a prior action[,] that means the case can't be brought again by the 

plaintiff in the same court."

After considering oral argument, the judge granted defendant's motion for 

a more definite statement by order dated December 7, 2018 (December 2018

order). In her oral decision, the judge recognized that her predecessor has "left 

open the opportunity for plaintiff to file a new claim," but she agreed defendants

were entitled to "a more definite statement as to the true identity of the plaintiff[]

in this litigation[.]" The December 2018 order required plaintiff to refile its 

complaint within ten days and "include an allegation identifying [its] legal name 

and . . . address," a certification by an "officer or director" identified by "full 

name, title, business address, and phone number" as to the veracity of plaintiff's 

"legal name and address[,]" and documentation by the certifying director or 

officer as to the accuracy of the information. 
7

A-3889-18T1

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2019, more than ten days 

after entry of the December 2018 order, that included KTIC's assertion that it 

was also known as K-SURE, its legal address, and, in a footnote, an assertion 

that K-SURE shared offices in New York City with Ksure N.Y. Attached as 

exhibits to the amended complaint were a certification from plaintiff's

"Recoveries Team's Director[,]" claiming that KTIC and K-SURE were the same 

entity with the same address, as well as an English translation of plaintiff's 

articles of incorporation stating the same. 

After first moving for and being granted an extension to file an answer, 

defendants instead moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice 

pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). Plaintiff filed opposition, including a certification by 

its "Team Leader of the Human Resources Team." She certified as to the 

accuracy of the earlier certification filed in support of the amended complaint, 

writing it had been filed by "an officer of [plaintiff], employed as the Director 

of the Plaintiff[']s Recoveries Team."

The judge considered oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss and 

reserved decision. On April 4, 2019, she rendered an oral decision granting 

defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. She found 

plaintiff's certifications "misleading or . . . not credible[,]" concluding neither 
8

A-3889-18T1

one was from an officer of KTIC. Citing the two orders entered in KTIC I, and 

plaintiff's failure to appeal either, she reasoned that "all summary judgment 

decisions are made with prejudice and . . . res judicata bars the refiling of claims 

between the same parties in a later litigation where those claims were previously 

decided on the merits." The judge noted that plaintiff asserted it was the same 

entity that filed KTIC I, thereby failing to satisfy the "window left open . . . by 

[the first judge] for the refiling of a complaint[.]" The judge dismissed the

amended complaint with prejudice "because plaintiff . . . now [had] three 

attempts to file, name the proper party in its lawsuit . . . against . . . defendants 

and ha[d] not succeeded." This appeal followed.

Plaintiff contends the judge misapplied the standards governing a motion 

to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e) and erroneously gave preclusive effect to 

the summary judgment entered in KTIC I. We agree and reverse. 

"A court considering a Rule 4:6-2(e) motion examines 'the legal 

sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint,' Printing MartMorristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989), limiting its review 

to 'the pleadings themselves,' Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555, 562 (2010)." 

Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, PC, 237 

N.J. 91, 107 (2019). The Rule usually anticipates that if materials outside the 
9

A-3889-18T1

pleadings are considered, "th[e] motion becomes a motion for summary 

judgment, and the court applies the standard of Rule 4:46." Ibid. (citing Roa,

200 N.J. at 562). Here, however, the judge's prior order required plaintiff to not 

only file an amended complaint, but also supply certifications from corporate 

officers to support its identity and relationship to K-SURE and aver as to the 

veracity of the pleading. As per her order, plaintiff included these certifications 

as exhibits to the amended complaint when filed. See Myska v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. 

Co., 440 N.J. Super. 458, 482 (App. Div. 2015) ("[A] court may consider 

documents specifically referenced in the complaint 'without converting the 

motion [to dismiss for failure to state a claim] into one for summary judgment.'"

(quoting E. Dickerson & Son, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 361 N.J. Super. 362, 

365 n.1 (App. Div. 2003), aff'd, 179 N.J. 500 (2004))).

"An appellate court reviews de novo the trial court's determination of the 

motion to dismiss . . . ." Dimitrakopoulos, 237 N.J. at 108 (citing Stop & Shop 

Supermarket Co., v. Cty. of Bergen, 450 N.J. Super. 286, 290 (App. Div. 2017)). 

"It owes no deference to the trial court's legal conclusions." Ibid. (citing Rezem 

Family Assocs. v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103, 114 (App. Div. 

2011)).
10 A-3889-18T1

In assessing the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), we "search 

the complaint 'in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament 

of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim[.]'"

Banco Popular, 184 N.J. at 165 (quoting Printing Mart-Morristown, 116 N.J. at 

746). The motion "should be granted in 'only the rarest [of] instances.'" Ibid. 

(alteration in original) (quoting Lieberman v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 132 

N.J. 76, 79 (1993)). The amended complaint clearly stated an actionable claim 

against defendants, and they do not argue otherwise.

Instead, as they did before the motion judge, defendants contend plaintiff 

was barred from proceeding under the amended complaint because it contained

the same factual allegations made in KTIC I, which was brought by the same 

plaintiff and dismissed by the grant of summary judgment, a final order entered 

with prejudice. Defendants contend that the first judge's order denying 

reconsideration "[n]ever [p]rovided [p]laintiff with [p]ermission to [c]ommence 

another [a]ction against the [s]ame [d]efendants[.]" Lastly, defendants argue we 

should affirm because plaintiff failed to comply with the December 2018 order 

requiring it to file the amended complaint within ten days, along with 

certifications from an officer or director. We reject these arguments.
11 A-3889-18T1

The judge in KTIC I granted summary judgment by concluding that 

plaintiff lacked standing because the assignment at issue was between CK and 

K-SURE.5 In granting defendants' motion to dismiss in KTIC II, the judge relied 

on two cases cited by defendants for the proposition that the grant of summary 

judgment was a final adjudication on the merits of the case, and, therefore, 

entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of res judicata. See Velasquez v. 

Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 507–08 (1991) (holding that a federal court's dismissal of 

prior suit based on the defendant's lack of capacity to be sued barred subsequent 

suit on same claim in state court); Auster v. Kinoian, 153 N.J. Super. 52, 56 

(App. Div. 1977) (noting that "the whole point of the summary judgment 

practice [is] to enable a party in appropriate circumstances to obtain, on motion 

and without plenary trial, the final adjudication of an action, in full or in part, 

on its merits"). However, these cases are readily distinguishable, and reliance 

5

 On the motion record presented, it appears the judge in KTIC I was mistaken 

when he concluded that KTIC lacked standing. We cannot say for sure, since 

the appellate record does not include all of what was before the Law Division in 

KTIC I. Nevertheless, it would seem that although KTIC was the sole plaintiff 

named in the complaint in that case, there was sufficient evidence demonstrating 

KTIC and K-SURE's identity of interest with respect to the letter of assignment. 

Plaintiff never appealed the summary judgment order or the denial of its motion 

for reconsideration, and we need not resolve whether the decision in KTIC I was 

correct or not. What matters is that the order granting summary judgment and 

the order denying reconsideration were premised on the legal conclusion that 

KTIC lacked standing to bring the suit.
12 A-3889-18T1

upon them to preclude plaintiff from proceeding on the amended complaint in 

KTIC II because of res judicata represents a misapprehension of our 

jurisprudence. 

"For a judicial decision to be accorded res judicata effect, it must be a 

valid and final adjudication on the merits of the claim." Velasquez 123 N.J. at 

506 (emphasis added) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 27 (1982)). 

"Standing is . . . a threshold issue. It neither depends on nor determines the 

merits of a plaintiff's claim." Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, 124 N.J. 

398, 417 (1991) (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750–51 (1984)). "A 

dismissal for lack of standing, like one for lack of jurisdiction, amounts to a 

refusal by the court to resolve the matter." Id. at 418. In Watkins, the Court 

explicitly distinguished its prior holding in Velasquez, noting that "a dismissal 

for lack of capacity to be sued, unlike a dismissal for lack of standing, constitutes 

a judgment 'on the merits.' Standing [on the other hand,] must be resolved 

before a court proceeds to determine the merits of a suit." Ibid. (quoting 

Velasquez, 123 N.J. at 507–08). 

Our decision in Auster is entirely distinguishable because our holding

there had nothing to do with standing. Instead, we affirmed the trial court's grant 

of summary judgment because the plaintiffs were unable to point to any evidence 
13 A-3889-18T1

supporting their negligence claim. 153 N.J. Super. at 54–55. Judge Pressler, 

writing for our court, nonetheless pointed out that it was error, albeit harmless, 

for the motion judge to grant summary judgment without prejudice, because that

represented a "fundamental misconception of the nature and purpose of 

[summary judgment] practice." Id. at 56. 

A summary judgment dismissing a complaint for lack of standing, 

however, is not entitled to preclusive effect because generally speaking, it is not, 

and was not in KTIC I, a final adjudication on the merits of the complaint. 

Watkins, 124 N.J. at 417–18; accord Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden 

Planning Bd., 234 N.J. 403, 423 (2018) ("Standing is a 'threshold issue' that 

'neither depends on nor determines the merits of a plaintiff's claim.'" (quoting

Watkins, 124 N.J. at 417)).6

Defendants cannot complain that plaintiff's failure to appeal the orders in 

KTIC I compels us to affirm the order under review. Simply put, the order 

denying reconsideration offered plaintiff the opportunity to file another 

complaint. Implicit in that order was recognition that despite being called 

6

 Denominating the order in KTIC I as one granting "summary judgment" does 

not accord it some talismanic equivalence to a final judgment on the merits. 

Indeed, we have recognized that the question of standing is cognizable when 

brought as a motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e). In re Ass'n of Trial Lawyers 

of Am., 228 N.J. Super. 180, 181–82 (App. Div. 1988). 
14 A-3889-18T1

"summary judgment," the order for which the judge denied reconsideration, 

lacked finality as to the merits of plaintiff's allegations in KTIC I, and explicitly 

contemplated further litigation. See Grow Co. v. Chokshi, 403 N.J. Super. 443, 

460–61 (App. Div. 2008) (criticizing dismissal without prejudice, and 

contemplation of potential future litigation between the parties, as a method to 

avoid interlocutory appellate practice). Certainly, had defendants thought the 

resolution of KTIC I was a final adjudication on the merits of plaintiff's claim, 

they would have considered appealing the lifesaver of refiling the complaint 

thrown to plaintiff by the judge in his order denying reconsideration. 

We also reject plaintiff's alleged failure to file the amended complaint 

within ten days of the December 2018 order, or its failure to supply a 

certification from one of its directors or officers, as independent bases to affirm 

dismissal of the amended complaint. Rule 4:6-4(a) provides:

If a responsive pleading is to be made to a pleading

which is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot 

reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, 

the party may move for a more definite statement before

interposing a responsive pleading. The motion shall 

point out the defects complained of and the details 

desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the 

court not complied with within [ten] days after notice 

of the order or within such other time as the court fixes,

the court may strike the pleading to which the motion 

was directed or make such order as it deems 

appropriate.
15 A-3889-18T1

In rendering her oral decision, the judge did not consider the lateness of the 

filing as significant, although she did conclude that plaintiff had not furnished 

any certifications from a corporate office or director. She did not consider this 

failure as a basis to grant the motion to dismiss; rather, the judge cited this 

failure as support for her conclusion that the plaintiff in KTIC II was no different 

than the plaintiff in KTIC I, and the summary judgment in the earlier litigation 

was an absolute bar to prosecution of the amended complaint by application of 

res judicata.

Defendants have provided no authority supporting the proposition that 

some technical failure to comply with an order entered pursuant to Rule 4:6-

4(a), as occurred here, can independently justify dismissal of the complaint with 

prejudice. Motions for more definite statements are disfavored and should be 

granted only in extreme circumstances. See, e.g., Voltube Corp. v. B. & C. 

Insulation Prods., Inc., 20 N.J. Super. 250, 255 (Ch. Div. 1951) (interpreting 

prior iteration of Rule as only authorizing relief "where the allegations . . . are 

so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot . . . frame a responsive pleading[,]" 

and "only in extreme cases." (citing Gorecki v. Gorecki, 1 N.J. Super. 471 (Ch. 

Div. 1948))). If an order entered under the Rule is not obeyed, the court may

"strike a pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it 
16 A-3889-18T1

deems appropriate." R. 4:6-4(a). Our research reveals no authority for dismissal 

with prejudice upon a parties minor failure to comply with the ten-day deadline 

under the Rule.

A fair reading of the amended complaint demonstrates compliance with 

our court rules, and the pleading adequately stated causes of action. It 

specifically identified KTIC and K-SURE, as well as the letter of assignment 

upon which plaintiff's ability to sue defendants was premised. It was error to 

dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), or by application of res 

judicata.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.