Title: Bo Kang Park, et al.
v.
Jung Hee Kim
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 20S-PL-00706
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: December 18, 2020

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 20S-PL-706 
Kyung Sil Choi, Bo Kang Park, and Han Chong, 
Appellants-Defendants, 
–v– 
Jung Hee Kim,  
Appellee-Plaintiff.  
Decided: December 18, 2020 
Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court, No. 53C04-1611-PL-2260 
The Honorable Elizabeth A. Cure, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals  
No. 19A-PL-1429 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur.   
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Dec 18 2020, 10:30 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-PL-706 | December 18, 2020 
Page 2 of 3 
Per curiam.  
The jury returned a $350,000 verdict for the plaintiff, Jung Hee Kim, on 
her theft claim against defendants Kyung Sil Choi, Bo Kang Park, and Han 
Chong. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, denied the 
defendants’ motion for judgment on the evidence and motion to correct 
error challenging that verdict, and awarded Kim attorney’s fees. 
On appeal, the defendants argued that (1) the trial court erred in 
communicating with the jury after deliberations began (“communication 
error”), thus requiring a new trial, and (2) the evidence does not support 
the theft verdict. The Court of Appeals unanimously held the 
communication error emphasized certain jury instructions relating to the 
theft claim and was reversible. Rather than remand for a new trial, 
though, the majority turned to the second issue, held that Kim failed to 
prove theft, and simply reversed. Kyung Sil Choi v. Jung Hee Kim, No. 19A-
PL-1429, 2020 WL 3478646 (Ind. Ct. App. June 26, 2020).  
Judge Tavitas dissented in part. She opined that whether the evidence 
supports the theft verdict need not be addressed “given the need for a 
new trial at which different evidence could be presented.” Id. at *6. We 
agree. See Moore v. Moore, 11 N.E.3d 980, 980 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) 
(reversing due to procedural error, remanding for new evidentiary 
hearing, and refraining from addressing appellant’s challenge to 
sufficiency of evidence); see also Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman, 796 N.E.2d 271, 
278 (Ind. 2003) (refraining from deciding whether damages were excessive 
where new trial on damages was being awarded).  
Accordingly, we grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court of 
Appeals’ decision, except its discussion on sufficiency of the evidence, 
which remains vacated. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). We reverse the trial 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-PL-706 | December 18, 2020 
Page 3 of 3 
court’s judgment (including its attorney’s fees award) and remand the 
case for a new trial on Kim’s theft claim.1       
    
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.  
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLA N T S 
Megan J. Schueler 
Ferguson Law   
Bloomington, Indiana 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLE E  
Vincent S. Taylor 
Bloomington, Indiana 
 
 
1 In addition to the theft verdict for Kim, the jury returned (1) a verdict against Kim on her 
claim for return of $16,000 that she allegedly lent to two of the defendants, and (2) a verdict 
against intervenor Oya, Inc. on its claim against Dale Invest2, Inc. for breach of contract. 
Appellants’ Joint App. Vol. 2 at 116-17. Kim did not appeal or cross-appeal; she asked for the 
trial court’s judgment to be upheld. Appellee’s Br. at 33. Oya did not appeal either. In other 
words, the proponents of the claims that received negative verdicts have not challenged those 
verdicts on appeal.