The appellate ruling in the divorce between SK Chairman Chey Tae-won and Director Roh Soh-yeong delivered the largest result in Korean divorce litigation history: a 1.3 trillion KRW property division and 2 billion KRW in consolation money. The first instance treated assets like SK shares as separate property and excluded them from division, but the appeal reversed this — including them in division and adjusting the ratio, producing a substantially different conclusion. From the perspective of an attorney with prior service as a presiding judge of a family court, this article organizes the key points and significance of the divergence between the two instances.
The big picture
A brief summary of the case flow.
- Director Roh Soh-yeong filed for divorce; Chairman Chey Tae-won filed a counterclaim for divorce, so both sides sought divorce.
- The first instance granted divorce, treated assets like SK shares as separate property and excluded them from division, and set the consolation money and division amount relatively conservatively.
- The appellate court reversed the first instance, including assets previously excluded in the division, and adjusting the division ratio and consolation money to recognize 1.3 trillion KRW in division and 2 billion KRW in consolation money.
- The Supreme Court subsequently remanded the case, returning it to the remand court.
The key issues are the scope of separate property, the reference time for the division ratio, and the center of gravity in calculating consolation money.
First instance vs. appeal: a side-by-side table
Placing the two instances' conclusions on the same table makes the divergence clear.
| Item | First instance | Appeal |
|---|---|---|
| Divorce granted | Granted | Granted |
| Nature of SK shares | Classified as separate property, excluded from division | Included in division |
| Division ratio | Relatively conservative | Expanded scope of division, substantially increased amount |
| Property division scale | About 66.5 billion KRW | About 1.3 trillion KRW |
| Consolation money | About 100 million KRW | 2 billion KRW |
| Reference time of valuation | Closing of pleadings at trial | Closing of pleadings at trial |
On the same facts, depending on how SK shares are characterized, the scale of the property division target moves by hundreds of billions of KRW, and the resulting amount nearly doubles.
The separate property doctrine — how far is joint marital effort?
In family law cases, separate property refers to property one spouse held before marriage or acquired during marriage by inheritance or gift, unrelated to the spouses' joint effort. As a rule, separate property is excluded from division.
However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that separate property may be included in division in cases such as the following.
- Where the other spouse made a contribution to maintaining or growing the separate property
- Where the separate property has effectively merged with other assets formed by joint effort, making them hard to separate
The first instance leaned toward classifying SK shares as Chairman Chey's separate property and excluded them from division. The appellate court reversed this, evaluating Director Roh's contribution broadly and viewing the value-formation process of SK shares as inseparable from the spouses' joint effort. A frequently cited expression in the appellate ruling was "evaluation of the circumstances in which slush funds flowed toward SK Inc. or Chairman Chey."
This difference in perspective is not merely a label question of "separate or not"; it is a question of how the spouses' asset-formation process is evaluated, and that evaluation moves the result by hundreds of billions of KRW.
Reference time for asset valuation: a further variable after the appeal
In divorce property division, the reference time for asset values is the closing of pleadings at trial. In appeals, that means the closing of appellate pleadings.
The price of SK shares in this case fluctuated significantly during the first instance, the appeal, and the remand stage. Whether the remand stage should treat the closing of remand pleadings or the prior appellate closing as the reference time emerged as an important issue, an area where the case law is not clearly settled.
The implications:
- Even on the same case, depending on when assets are valued, the result amount may move again by hundreds of billions of KRW.
- The legal dispute over the reference time of valuation, as much as the division ratio, becomes a result-determining variable.
What 2 billion KRW in consolation money signifies
The appellate court set consolation money at 2 billion KRW. Given that consolation money in usual divorce cases is in the tens of millions of KRW, this amount sends a new signal to the consolation money framework itself.
The core factors that raised the consolation money:
- The very large scale of assets
- The evaluation of responsibility for the marital breakdown
- The weight of social standing and publicly known facts
While 2 billion KRW is a small share compared to the division amount, it is evaluated as having redrawn the upper bound of consolation money in future high-asset divorce cases.
The meaning of 2 billion KRW in consolation money should be read not as an absolute amount but as a signal that the center of gravity of consolation money calculation has shifted in high-asset divorce cases.
What stands out in this case from a former family court presiding judge's view
I handled family cases at the Family Court in earlier years and encountered many high-asset divorce cases. This case stands out in two ways.
- The evaluation of the value-formation process of the division target itself determines the result. In typical divorce cases the asset list is fixed and the parties dispute ratios; here, the result diverged starting from how the asset list was drawn.
- Consolation money in socially attentive cases reshapes the typical calculation framework. The 2 billion KRW figure is likely to function as a benchmark in future cases.
In cases like this, how the asset's nature and formation process are organized at the early stage determines the outcome. Three-dimensional analysis of the asset's nature is needed before debating ratios.
Frequently asked questions
Q. Is separate property always excluded from division? A. Not necessarily. It can be included where the other spouse contributed to maintaining or growing it, or where it has effectively merged with other jointly formed assets. This case is a representative example showing the breadth of that evaluation.
Q. The appeal recognized 1.3 trillion KRW in division. Can the remand stage change the result again? A. Yes. Depending on the Supreme Court's reasons for remand, some issues may be revisited at the remand stage, and a change in the reference time could move the division amount meaningfully.
Q. Does this doctrine apply to ordinary divorce cases too? A. The applicable doctrine is the same; only the scale differs. The scope of separate property, the reference time for valuation, and the standards for consolation money are issues addressed identically in all divorce cases.
Closing
The Chey-Roh appellate ruling is the clearest example of how the result of divorce property division can diverge depending on how the nature of an asset is evaluated on the same facts. Separate property doctrine, scope of division evaluation, and the shifted center of gravity in consolation money are the key terms. The remand stage's conclusion may shift again, but the applicable doctrine applies the same way in ordinary high-asset divorce cases.
Get a consultation by chat now
Drafted by Attorney Yoon Jisang, Jonjae Law Firm. Last reviewed 2026-05-30.
This article is general legal information based on publicly available judgments and reporting, and does not guarantee the outcome of individual cases. Asset evaluation and division ratios may vary by facts, so please consult separately for specific matters.
