Choi Tae Won Marital Asset Division Supreme Court Analysis

In the Roh Soh-yeong / Chey Tae-won divorce appellate (Supreme Court) ruling, the Supreme Court for the first time explicitly held that "even after marital breakdown, dispositions related to the maintenance of marital common property cannot become subject to division." Outlets including Legal Times noted concerns about "potential practical confusion," and I have spent several days reading and re-reading this part.

I do not see this holding as a change as large as commonly reported. But it is clear that the Supreme Court has more sharply drawn the outline of principle and exception in an area previously handled ambiguously. I organize that nuance below.

The Supreme Court's holding was as follows.

The principle is "dispositions are presumed held and subject to division"; the exception is "if the disposition contributes to maintenance of marital common property, it is excluded."

The disputed dispositions by Chairman Chey were the following five.

• August 2014: Gift of SK C&C shares to the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies, etc.
• October 2018: Gift of SK Inc. shares to the Choi Jong-Hyun Academic Foundation
• November 2018: Gift of SK Inc. shares to 18 relatives
• From around 2012: Gifts to younger brother Chey Jae-won and salary returns from the SK Group (totaling about 92.7 billion KRW)
• 2017: Payment of gift tax on behalf of younger brother Chey Jae-won

The Supreme Court ruled that all five occurred before the marital breakdown date recognized by the appellate court (December 4, 2019), and that they could be seen as related to the maintenance or value growth of marital common property as part of business activities, so they should be excluded from division.

The appellate court included the same dispositions in the division. Its grounds were:

• Dispositions after the separation date (September 11, 2011)
• Some occurred after the divorce mediation filing
• Hard to see as dispositions in the course of ordinary daily life
• A gift scale of about 994.2 billion KRW is hard to view as part of usual marital life

Logically persuasive. That made the Supreme Court's remand land more heavily.

In property division cases, the scope and value of property are determined as of "the closing of pleadings at trial" in principle. However, assets like money, which are easy to consume or hide, are treated under a different reference time.

• Real property and shares: as of closing of pleadings at trial
• Money (deposits, etc.): as of marital breakdown (separation date or filing date)

This doctrine is established by the Supreme Court and applied identically by lower and supreme courts.

I do not think this holding should be read as "the marital breakdown time has been changed to the counterclaim filing date." The reasons:

• The Supreme Court is a court of legal review and respects findings of fact
• The appellate court treated December 4, 2019 as the breakdown date based on the parties' agreed statements; the Supreme Court only respected that
• Internally, it can be inferred that the Supreme Court viewed the separation date (2011) or Chairman Chey's mediation filing date (2017) as the breakdown date
• Therefore, even for "dispositions before breakdown," it deliberately set out the exclusion doctrine

If the Supreme Court had truly taken the counterclaim filing date as the new breakdown standard, it would not have needed to invoke "post-breakdown disposition" doctrine at all. On that point, I read this holding as not shifting the reference time itself, but as clarifying the exception zone based on the nature of the disposition.

In Legal Times interviews, two strands of opinion were raised.

• Attorney Lee Young-kwon: "The first divorce filing date is the correct reference, and the appellate ruling matches practice. The Supreme Court ruling is wrong."
• Attorney Kim Sang-hoon: "The Supreme Court holding seems to be less about simply taking the breakdown time as the standard, and more about requiring comprehensive consideration of the purpose and circumstances of the disposition."

I read closer to Attorney Kim. The purpose and circumstances of the disposition — that is, whether they contribute to securing the corporate manager's control or maintaining marital common property value — are at the core.

Where this holding affects practice:

• The "presumed-held" logic may not apply unconditionally to post-breakdown dispositions
• Greater emphasis on proof of whether the disposition's purpose contributes to maintenance or growth of marital common property
• Increased importance of business-justification materials in corporate-manager and high-asset cases
• Conversely, claimants need to present more refined material showing that the disposition is arbitrary and unrelated to marital common life

Q. So if a spouse disposes of property after separation, it will always be excluded from division? A. No. The principle remains "presumed held and included in division"; only when the disposition relates to maintenance or value growth of marital common property may it exceptionally be excluded. In ordinary matters, the practice is not materially different from before.

Q. Is the reference time for marital breakdown the separation date or the filing date? A. It depends on the case. Generally, whichever of separation, divorce mediation filing, or suit filing is most consistent with the parties' statements and circumstances is recognized.

Q. Does this ruling apply directly to ordinary divorce cases? A. The doctrine is general; application depends on the facts. In typical arbitrary disposition matters, inclusion in division is likely to remain; only matters with business justification may enter the exception zone.

Case law must be read in a principle-and-exception structure to see its intent. If you need to assess how it applies to your case, Get a consultation by chat now and we can organize the facts and materials with you.

Legal information has become very accessible. Reading and reviewing the case text directly with the help of AI enables a deeper understanding than relying solely on experts. Still, accurately reading the principle-and-exception nuance must be done together with the specific circumstances of the case. Get a consultation by chat now

Drafted: Attorney Yoon Jisang Reviewed: 2026-05-30

This article summarizes general family and inheritance legal information and is not legal advice for a specific case. Conclusions may vary depending on facts and evidence, so please consult on specific matters.