According to reporting by the Korean American Journal, Korean Journal, and Korea World, *
*Chairman Ethan Lee, Vice Presidents Jacey Jetton, Daniel Yoo and Brian Kim sought a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, in addition to challenging the bylaws against Vivienne Kwon in the KACC Houston leadership dispute.
The court denied the TRO request on September 11, 2026, and denied the temporary injunction request following an evidentiary hearing on October 7, 2026.
The dispute concerns their asserted authority to remove Kwon as president and obtain control of Chamber funds, records, and organizational accounts. The Korean American Journal’s reporting examines whether appointment to an officer position also established director status.
Cause Case 2026-66043 Court Denies TRO and Temporary Injunction Sought by Jacey Jetton, Ethan Lee, D Cause Case 2026-66043 Court Denies TRO and Temporary Injunction Sought by Jacey Jetton, Ethan Lee, D
*Neither the 2021 nor the 2024 KACC Houston bylaws establishes a Chairman position.
English translation of reporting by Yang Dong-wook, Korean American Journal. Original article published October 16, 2026.
“Vice Presidents Were Never Appointed as Directors”
Court Denies Lawsuit Filed by Chamber Vice Presidents
Vivienne Kwon, President of the Korean American Chamber of Commerce of Houston (hereinafter “KACC”), prevailed in the temporary injunction (TI) proceedings following the temporary restraining order (TRO) proceedings.
Four individuals— Ethan Lee, Vice President Daniel Yoo, Vice President Jacey Jetton, and Vice President Brian Kim—filed applications for both a TRO and a TI with the Harris County Court on September 10.
In their petition, the four individuals alleged that “the KACC Board of Directors, in accordance with the bylaws, removed President Vivienne Kwon on August 27, 2026, through written consent without just cause.” They therefore requested that the court urgently restore control over KACC's funds, records, and organizational identity.
At the TRO hearing held on September 11, the judge denied the application submitted by the four individuals.
The TI hearing was originally scheduled for September 21 but was postponed until October 7. Following a hearing lasting approximately four hours, the judge ruled to deny the temporary injunction requested by the four individuals.
Dispute Over Whether the Vice Presidents Were Officers or Directors
The court's decisions concerning the TRO and TI applications submitted by the four individuals centered on whether Daniel Yoo, Jacey Jetton, and Brian Kim should be recognized as directors.
Attorney Patrick Yarborough, representing the four individuals, argued in the TRO and TI petition filed with the court that, pursuant to a unanimous written consent prepared between March 10 and March 13, 2026 (hereinafter the “March 2026 Consent”), KACC's directors at that time elected David Kang and Dana Oh as directors.
He further claimed that Ethan Lee, Vivienne Kwon, Daniel Yoo, Jacey Jetton, Brian Kim, Sean Rheem, and Lisa Cheng were elected to the respective positions of chairman, president, vice chairman, vice chairman, vice chairman, treasurer, and secretary, thereby establishing a Board of Directors consisting of nine individuals.
Daniel Yoo also stated in his declaration submitted to the court:
“I am a director of the Korean American Chamber of Commerce of Houston (hereinafter ‘KACC’) and have been the duly elected president of KACC since August 29, 2026.”
The four individuals repeatedly testified that, through unanimous written consent prepared between March 10 and March 13, 2026, KACC's directors at that time consisted of David Kang, Dana Oh, Ethan Lee, Vivienne Kwon, Daniel Yoo, Jacey Jetton, Brian Kim, Sean Rheem, and Lisa Cheng.
They asserted that these nine individuals constituted the Board of Directors, having been elected to the respective positions of Chairman, President, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, and Secretary.
Attorney Ahn: “Officers Were Not Appointed as Directors”
Attorney Ahn, representing President Vivienne Kwon, argued that a distinction must be made between a position granted by an organization such as KACC and the claim that the organization lawfully conferred that position.
Attorney Ahn stated:
“Simply because someone was elected as an officer does not establish that the person was elected or appointed as a director.”
Attorney Ahn further emphasized that the March 2026 meeting minutes, which the four individuals presented as important evidence in their TRO and TI applications, contained records electing certain officers who were not directors.
According to the evidence submitted by the four individuals and confirmed through the Harris County Court, meeting minutes apparently prepared in March 2026 showed that nine directors signed the documents individually between March 11 and March 13.
The meeting minutes signed by the nine directors stated:
“The following individuals are elected to the offices listed below. They shall perform the duties of their respective offices at the discretion of the Board of Directors and shall remain in office until their successors are elected and qualified, or until their earlier resignation or removal.”
The records confirmed the following appointments: Ethan Lee as Chairman, Vivienne Kwon as President, and Daniel Yoo, Jacey Jetton, and Brian Kim as Vice Presidents. However, the only individuals specifically appointed as directors in those same meeting minutes were Dana Oh and David Kang.
Attorney Ahn: “There Is No Evidence That the Officers Also Held Director Positions”
In the petition submitted to the court, Attorney Ahn stated:
“Texas law treats Directors and Officers as separate positions.”
Attorney Ahn further explained:
“Initial directors are identified in the organization's certificate of formation. Subsequent directors are elected, appointed, or designated according to the certificate of formation or the bylaws. If no such provisions exist, they are elected by the Board of Directors.”
He emphasized:
“The appointment of officers is governed separately.”
Attorney Ahn argued:
“Therefore, the fact that the four individuals who filed this lawsuit were elected as Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, or other officers, as reflected in the meeting minutes, does not mean that they also held director positions.”
He further stated:
“To claim that they held both positions, they must present evidence showing that they were appointed to each position separately.”
Attorney Ahn pointed out that the plaintiffs' mistaken belief that being elected as an officer also granted them director status could not override the requirements of Texas law.
He also argued that none of the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in support of their TRO and TI applications established that they had been separately elected, appointed, or designated as directors.
The four individuals were also unable to identify any provision granting director status through an officer position.
Attorney Ahn therefore requested that the judge deny both the TRO and TI applications.
Judge Denies TRO and Temporary Injunction
The judge denied the TRO application submitted by the four individuals on September 11.
On October 7, the court stated that it had conducted an evidentiary hearing on the record.
The court subsequently ruled:
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Application for Temporary Injunction is DENIED.”
In other words, the court denied the application for a temporary injunction.
Reported by Yang Dong-wook | koamjournal@gmail.com
As written and originally published in Korean
휴스턴한인상공회의소(이하 KACC) 권용옥(Vivienne Kwon) 회장이 긴급가처분소송(TRO)에 이어 가처분소송(TI)에서도 승소했다.유다니엘(Daniel Yoo) 부회장을 비롯해 이홍석(Ethan Lee) 이사장, 제이시 제튼(Jacey Jetton) 부회장, 그리고 김브라이언(Brian Kim) 부회장 등 4명이 지난 9월10일 해리스카운티법원에 TRO와 TI를 동시에 접수시켰다.이들 4명은 법원에 제출한 소장에서 “KACC 이사회가 정관에 명시된 바와 같이 서면 동의를 통해 2026년 8월 27일 권용옥 회장을 정당한 사유 없이 해임”했기 때문에 “KACC가 자체 자금, 기록 및 정체성에 대한 통제권을 긴급 회복해야 한다”며 법원에 TRO와 TI를 동시에 신청했다.9월11일 열린 TRO 심리에서 판사는 유 부회장 등이 제기한 TRO 신청을 기각했다. TI 심리는 9월21일로 예정됐지만, 연기돼 10월7일 열렸다. 약 4시간 가량 진행된 TI 심리에서 판사는 유 부회장 등 4명이 신청한 TI를 기각한다고 판결했다.
부회장, 임원이냐 이사냐가 쟁점유 부회장 등 4명이 신청한 TRO와 TI 기각결정은 유다니엘, 제이시 제튼, 그리고 김브라이언 부회장을 이사로 인정할지 여부에서 판가름 났다.유 부회장 등 4명을 대리한 패트릭 야보로(Patrick Yarborough) 변호사는 법원에 제출한 TRO·TI 소장에서 “2026년 3월 10일부터 3월 13일까지 작성된 만장일치 서면 동의서(이하 ”2026년 3월 동의“)에 따라 KACC의 당시 이사들은 강데이비드(David Kang)와 오다나(Dana Oh)를 이사로 선출하고, 이홍석(Ethan Lee), 권용옥(Kwon), 유다니엘(Daniel Yoo), 제이시 제튼(Jacey Jetton), 김브라이언(Brian Kim), 임종민(Sean Rheem), 리사 정(Lisa Cheng)을 각각 회장, 사장, 부회장, 부회장, 부회장, 재무, 서기로 선출하여 총 9명의 이사로 구성된 이사회를 구성했다”고 주장했다.유 부회장도 법원에 제출한 진술서에서 “나는 휴스턴한인상공회의소(이하 ”KACC“)의 이사이며, 2026년 8월 29일부터 KACC의 정식으로 선출된 회장”이라고 주장했다.유 부회장 등 4명은 “2026년 3월 10일부터 13일까지 만장일치로 작성된 서면 동의서를 통해 KACC의 당시 이사진은 강데이비드, 오다나를 이사로, 이홍석, 권용옥(), 본인, 제이시 제튼, 김브라이언, 션 림, 리사 청을 각각 회장, 부회장, 부회장, 부회장, 재무, 서기로 선출하여 총 9명의 이사진을 구성했다”고 거듭 진술했다.
안권 변호사 “임원, 이사로 임명 안 해”권용옥 회장을 대리한 안권 변호사는 KACC와 같은 단체가 부여하는 직책에 대한 판단과 단체가 해당 직책을 “적법하게 부여”했다는 사실은 엄격히 구분해야 한다고 주장했다. 안 변호사는 “임원으로 선출되었다는 사실만으로, 이사로 선출되거나 임명되었다는 사실을 입증할 수는 없다”고 강조했다.안 변호사는 유 부회장 등 4명이 TRO·TI 신청에 ‘중요’ 증거로 제시한 2026년 3월 회의록에 따르면 “이사가 아닌 특정 임원을 선출하는 기록”이라고 반박했다.유 부회장 등 4명이 법원에 제출한 증거서류를 한미저널이 해리스카운티법원을 통해 확인한 바에 따르면 2026년 3월에 작성된 것으로 보이는 회의록에는 9명의 이사들이 3월 11일부터 3월 13일 사이에 각각 서명한 것으로 나타났다.9명의 이사들이 서명한 회의록에는 “아래 명시된 직책에 다음과 같은 사람들이 선출되며, 이들은 이사회의 재량에 따라 해당 직책을 수행할 수 있고, 후임자가 선출되어 자격을 갖출 때까지 또는 그 이전에 사임하거나 해임될 때까지 직책을 유지한다”고 밝히고 “이홍석 이사장으로, 이용옥(Vivienne Kwon) 회장, 그리고 유다니엘, 제이시 제튼, 김브라이언은 부회장”을 맡는 것으로 확인됐다. 같은 회의록에서 이사로 특정해 임명된 사람은 오다나와 강데이비드 2명 뿐이다.
안권 변호사 “임원, 이사 겸직 증거 없다”안권 변호사는 법원에 제출한 소장에서 “텍사스는 주법으로 이사와 임원을 별도로 규정한다”고 밝혔다.안 변호사는 또 “최초 이사는 단체 설립 신청서에 명시되지만 이후 선임되는 이사는 단체 설립 신청서 또는 정관에 명시된 방식에 따라 ‘선출, 임명 또는 지정’되며, 그러한 규정이 없는 경우에는 이사회에서 선출한다”며 “임원 선임은 별도로 규정된다”고 강조했다.안 변호사는 “따라서 회장, 서기, 회계 또는 기타 임원으로 선출했다고 기록된 회의록만으로는 (소송을 제기한 4명이) 이사직도 겸직하게 되었다고 볼 수 없다”며 “두 직책을 모두 가졌다고 주장하려면 각각의 직책에 임명됐다는 근거를 제시해야 한다”고 주장했다.안 변호사는 원고 측이 임원 선출로 이사 자격까지 부여받았다고 “잘못 믿은 사실만으로는” 텍사스주법의 규정을 피해갈 수는 없다고 지적했다.안 변호사는 원고 측이 TRO·TI에 제출한 증거들 어디에도 “별도의 이사 선출, 임명 또는 지명됐다는 사실”을 확인해 주지 못했다고 주장하고 유 부회장 등 4명은 “임원 직위를 통해 이사 자격을 부여하는 관련 규정도 제시하지 못했다”며 판사에게 TRO·TI 기각을 요청했다.
판사 “TRO·TI 기각”9월 11일 유 부회장 등 4명이 신청한 TRO를 기각한 판사는 10월 7일 “법원은 기록상 증거 심리를 진행했다”(The court held evidentiary hearing on the recored)고 밝히고, “따라서, 임시 금지 명령 신청은 기각한다”(IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT The Application of Temporary Injuction is DENIED)고 판결했다.
양동욱 기자 koamjournal@gmail.com
These decisions denied the requested temporary relief. The underlying lawsuit remains ongoing.