Noh Choi Divorce Three Lessons from Supreme Court

In the long-watched divorce between director Noh Soyoung and chairman Choi Tae-won, the Supreme Court finally issued a decision: dismissal of further review for the damages portion, reversal and remand for the property-division portion. The property division, which jumped from 66.5 billion KRW at first instance to 1.3808 trillion KRW on appeal, returns to the family court. Beyond simply summarizing the flow, this article organizes three doctrines that also apply to ordinary divorce cases.

The flow of the case from 66.5 billion at first instance to 1.3808 trillion on appeal

The case progresses as follows:

• Filing and counterclaim: After chairman Choi filed for divorce, director Noh contested the main claim but pivoted to accept the divorce, filing a counterclaim for property division.
• First instance: 100 million KRW damages and roughly 66.5 billion KRW property division. Separate property such as SK group stock was excluded from the division pool.
• Appeal: Damages rose to 20 billion KRW and property division to roughly 1.3808 trillion KRW. Separate property was brought into the pool, and property already disposed of by one party was included via a presumption of retention—these were the cores of the difference.
• Supreme Court: 20 billion KRW damages confirmed by dismissal of further review. Property-division portion reversed and remanded.

Given the long attention, it is meaningful to understand exactly why the Supreme Court reached different conclusions on damages and property division.

Lesson 1 the meaning of the 20 billion KRW confirmation

The Supreme Court confirmed the appeals award of 20 billion KRW by dismissal of further review. This was not a mere mechanical denial; it was a substantive determination that the lower courts assessment of damages was not unlawful.

In existing practice, damages for adultery typically ranged from 30 million to 50 million KRW, rarely exceeding 100 million KRW. This determination opens room for the upper bound of damages amounts to flex upward more flexibly going forward, depending on the degree of fault, marriage length, child-rearing burden, social position, and other circumstances.

That said, this ruling does not automatically raise all adultery damages to the 20 billion KRW range. Each case still depends on its specific circumstances; the proper reading is that the range of assessment has widened.

Lesson 2 can illegally acquired assets be invoked as contribution to division

Reversing and remanding the appeal on property division, the Supreme Court made two doctrines explicit. The first is the application of the illegal-cause doctrine to property division.

Article 746 of the Civil Act provides that the return of benefits granted for an illegal cause cannot be claimed. The Supreme Court made it clear that this legislative purpose must also be considered in property-division claims based on divorce.

Specifically, even if the roughly 30 billion KRW support said to come from former president Roh Tae-woo was a fact, that outlay can only be assessed as funds received during his tenure; therefore it cannot be counted as director Nohs contribution to property division. In other words, even where assets with illegality helped form the marital estate, if the funds themselves lie outside the laws protection, recognizing them as division contribution is difficult.

This is meaningful for ordinary divorces too. The pattern of claiming I contributed to the household economy with assets formed by socially criticizable means is generally hard to recognize as division contribution.

Lesson 3 asset disposals before the breakdown made for managerial purposes

The second doctrine is that where one spouse, before the breakdown, disposes of property to maintain or increase the value of the marital estate, that disposed property can be excluded from the division pool.

In this case, before the breakdown date of December 4, 2019, chairman Choi engaged in the following disposals aimed at securing group control:

• 2014 donation of SK-related stock to the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies and others
• 2018 donation of SK stock to the Choi Final Academy
• 2018 donations of SK stock to relatives
• Gifts and tax payments to his younger brother, salary returns to the group, and others

The appeal viewed these as unilateral disposals contemplating breakdown and included them in the pool via a presumption of retention. The Supreme Court, however, held that because these took place before the breakdown and can be assessed as actions for securing stable group control or part of management activity, they should be excluded from the pool.

Likely flow after the remand

Following these doctrines, the size of the pool may shift as follows:

• Of the roughly 4 trillion KRW the appeal treated as the division pool, the roughly 1.1116 trillion KRW disposed of for the purpose of maintaining management is likely to be excluded.
• The pool on remand is therefore likely to shrink to roughly 2.899 trillion KRW.
• The division ratio itself will be re-litigated on remand.

My personal expectation is that director Nohs division ratio is likely to be substantially lowered from the prior 35 percent. That said, the ratio is a matter largely within the fact-finding courts discretion, so I cannot say definitively.

Points worth keeping in mind for ordinary divorces

This Supreme Court ruling is not just a chaebol matter. The following three messages apply to ordinary divorces as well.

• The range of adultery damages has room to widen. Case-specific facts remain decisive.
• Claims of contribution to assets formed via illegal sources are hard to recognize. Where the legitimacy of asset formation is at stake, revisit your proof strategy.
• Asset disposals before the breakdown for maintaining or increasing the value of the marital estate may be excluded from the pool. Timing, purpose, and relation to the marital estate are the core variables.

Frequently asked questions

Q. Does the 20 billion KRW damages award apply directly to ordinary divorces? A. No. But it has opened more flexible room for upper-bound assessment of adultery damages, which may influence lower courts going forward.

Q. Is it correct, as the first instance held, to exclude all SK stock from the pool? A. The Supreme Court does not take that view. It preserves the appeals premise of placing SK stock and other separate property in the pool, while excluding only the portion disposed of for maintaining management.

Q. If one spouse runs a business and disposes of assets, is the disposed property always excluded from the pool? A. No. Timing, purpose, and relation to the marital estate must be reviewed together; disposals after breakdown or with weak ties to the marital estate may still be in the pool.

A big case, but the doctrines are those of ordinary divorces

Reviewing this case again, the cores the Supreme Court flagged are issues litigated again and again in ordinary divorces. The larger the assets, the wider the outcome the same doctrines produce; the standards at the starting point are the same.

If you want a brief check on how your property-division structure can be organized, you can also start a chat consultation now.

Yoon Ji-sang, Managing Attorney / Jonjae Law Firm Former presiding judge, Family and Inheritance Counsel Last reviewed 2026-05-30

This article is general legal information and does not replace legal advice on any individual matter. Outcomes vary with the facts of each case; if you have a specific dispute, please seek a separate consultation.