Case Brief the following case: Kim v. Son using the provided format.

Required Case Brief Format This format is required, and the use of it will assist you in class participation. . What is the case name AND the date of the decision? . What is the court that decided the case? . Who were the parties? . What was the cause of action and what remedy was sought? . What happened procedurally in the case? (any lower court but with focus on this court's decision) 6. What are the essential facts? 7. What is the issue (i.e., what yeso question did the court have to answer to decide this case) and what conclusion on that question did the court hold? 8. What law did the court use to answer the question of the issue? 9. What analysis did the court use to reach those conclusions? 10. Was was the dicta or dissent in this case (if any) oW N Kim v. Son Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California, 2009. Unpublished Opinion. 2009 WL 597232. O'Leary, J. Jinsoo Kim begins his opening brief by stating, \"Blood may be thicker than water, but here it's far weightier than a peppercom.\"1 Kim appeals from the trial court's refusal to enforce a gratuitous promise, handwritten in his friend's own blood, to repay money Kim loaned and lost in two failed business ventures. . . . We conclude the trial court's statement of decision sufficiently set forth the facts and law supporting its ultimate conclusion [that] Son's promise to repay the money was entirely gratuitous and unenforceable, even when reduced to blood. . . . In the context of this contract dispute, Son's blood was not weightier than a peppercorn. Son was the majority shareholder (70 percent owner) and operated a South Korean company, MJ, Inc. (MJ). He was also the sole owner of a California corporation, Netouch International Inc. (Netouch). After several months of investigation, Kim loaned money and invested in these companies. It was undisputed he wired the money directly to the corporate bank accounts. Son did not personally receive any of the funds. Kim invested 100 million won,2 and later loaned 30 million won to MJ. He loaned $40,000 to Netouch. There was no evidence these investments or loans were personally guaranteed by Son. Unfortunately, these businesses failed and Kim lost his money. In October 2004, Son and Kim met in a sushi bar where they consumed a great deal of alcohol. When they were at the bar, Son asked the waiter for a safety 216 pin, used it to prick his finger, and then wrote a \"promissory note\" with his blood. The document, translated from Korean to English, reads, \"Sir, please forgive me. Because of my deeds you have suffered financially. I will repay you to the best of my ability.\" At some point that same day, Son also wrote in ink \"I hereby swear (promise) that I will pay back, to the best of my ability, the estimated amount of 170,000,000 (w)ons to (Kim).\" Well over a year later, in June 2006, this blood-written note became the basis for Kim's lawsuit against Son alleging: (1) default of promissory note. . . . He claimed Son agreed in the \"promissory note\" to pay Kim 170 million won, which is approximately equivalent to $170,000. After holding a bench trial, the court ruled in Son's favor. In its statement of decision, the court determined the \"blood agreement\" was not an enforceable contract. The court made the following findings: There was no evidence Son agreed to personally guarantee the loan or investment money. Son wrote the note in his own blood \"while extremely intoxicated and feeling sorry for (Kim's) losses.\" The blood agreement lacked sufficient consideration because it \"was not a result of a bargained-for-exchange, but rather a gratuitous promise by (Son) who took personally that (Kim), his good friend, had a failure in his investments that (Son) had initially brought him into.\" . . . The (c)ourt refuses to enforce a gratuitous promise even when it is reduced to blood.\" . . . The judgment is affirmed