Noh Soyoung 1.38 Trillion and Lee Boo-jin 14.1 Billion: Where Two Chaebol Divorce Rulings Diverged
First published 2026-05-30 / Last reviewed 2026-05-30 This article is general legal information based on the YouTube commentary by attorney Yoon Ji-sang of Jonjae Law Firm.
Both are chaebol divorces, yet one resulted in 1.3808 trillion KRW property division on appeal, while the other settled at 14.1 billion KRW. The headline numbers may look like a simple gap in asset size, but the core of what split the two rulings lies elsewhere: whether core stockholdings were recognized as separate property (teukyu jaesan), how much was awarded in damages, and how broadly the contribution rate was evaluated. This article organizes the issues in the Noh Soyoung Choi Tae-won case and the Lee Boo-jin Lim Woo-jae case from a practitioners view.
Stating the basic structures of the two cases first
It is best to compare the basic skeletons of the two cases first. The facts themselves are the starting point that drives the result.
- Noh Soyoung Choi Tae-won case: Married in 1988, marriage of about 37 years. Choi Tae-won filed for divorce in 2018. First instance recognized 66.5 billion KRW property division and 100 million KRW damages to director Noh Soyoung. Appeal recognized 1.3808 trillion KRW property division and 20 billion KRW damages. The Supreme Court confirmed the 20 billion KRW damages and the divorce; the property-division portion was reversed and remanded, currently being reheard at the Seoul High Court.
- Lee Boo-jin Lim Woo-jae case: Married in 1999, marriage of about 21 years. Lee Boo-jin filed for divorce in 2015. First instance 8.6 billion KRW, second instance 14.1 billion KRW property division; affirmed by the Supreme Court via dismissal of further review. No separate damages claim was made.
From my consultations, some cases reveal the outcome from the facts alone, others do not. These two chaebol cases lean toward the latter. Although both involved divorces among very large assets, the legal doctrines that operated were different.
Divergence point 1 whether the core stock is separate property
In high-asset divorces, the locus that effectively determines the win-loss of property division is whether the core stock is classified as separate property. The two cases diverged head-on here.
In the Noh Soyoung Choi Tae-won case, SK stock was classified as separate property at first instance and entirely excluded from division. On appeal, however, it was included in the division pool, and contribution related to Director Nohs role in slush-fund formation was also recognized, pushing the property division to 1.3808 trillion KRW. The Supreme Court then reversed and remanded on the ground that contribution based on illegal sources cannot be recognized, and rehearing is now in progress.
In the Lee Boo-jin Lim Woo-jae case, Samsung-related stock was recognized as separate property at first instance and excluded from the division pool, and that conclusion was maintained at the appellate court and Supreme Court. The pool subject to division was therefore the assets excluding Samsung stock, less than 10 billion KRW, 20 percent of which went to Lim Woo-jae.
Tying both cases to the same yardsticks
| Item | Noh Soyoung Choi Tae-won case | Lee Boo-jin Lim Woo-jae case |
|---|---|---|
| Marriage length | About 37 years | About 21 years |
| Filing year | 2018 | 2015 |
| Core stock division | Excluded at 1st, included on appeal, reversed and remanded | Excluded as separate property at every instance |
| Appeal division amount | 1.3808 trillion KRW | 14.1 billion KRW |
| Damages | 20 billion KRW (final) | None claimed |
| Division ratio | Appeal 35 percent | Appeal 20 percent (after excluding Samsung stock) |
| Decisive factor | Core stock included in pool plus slush-fund contribution | Management structure that kept core stock as separate property |
The table makes it clear. The difference between the two is not asset size but whether the core stock enters the division pool and, on top of that, how far the contribution is evaluated.
From my consultations, in high-asset divorce cases, the perception that most often diverges among clients is the idea that it is all about the ratio in the end. But before any ratio dispute, what comes into the pool is decisive. Once the pool shrinks, even 35 percent loses meaning.
Why 20 billion KRW in damages is exceptional
The 20 billion KRW damages in the Noh Soyoung Choi Tae-won case is an unusual figure. Even in cases involving death, Korean family-court damages have rarely reached 20 billion KRW. In that sense, the appeals decision here is likely to have substantial influence on future damages assessments.
In my view, damages amounts are likely to trend upward going forward. The size of Korean assets has grown, and there is a clearer trend in family cases for damages to reflect not only emotional injury but also social evaluation of fault such as adultery. That said, a single case is not directly generalized, so I do not recommend starting from this figure as an expectation in your own case.
Divergence point 2 the breadth of contribution
Contribution assessment is not simply a matter of what the ratio is. The breadth of contribution to be recognized is decided first, and the ratio is set on top of that.
The contributions recognized on Director Nohs side were broad. They covered not only homemaking, childcare, and supporting the husband, but also the informal influence of her natal family, former president Roh Tae-woos house, which was assessed as contributing to the acquisition that built SK. That is how the appeal could push the division ratio to 35 percent. The Supreme Court then held that contributions grounded in illegal sources cannot be recognized, and that aspect is now being cleaned up on rehearing.
In contrast, Lim Woo-jaes contribution in the Lee Boo-jin Lim Woo-jae case was not assessed as a special contribution beyond the typical mens range in homemaking, childcare, and spousal support. Conversely, the circumstances of investment losses he caused led to a narrow evaluation of contribution to asset formation and maintenance.
Divergence point 3 how the core stock was managed
A key reason Samsung-related stock was recognized as separate property at every instance in the Lee Boo-jin case was that those shares were not in a form that Lim Woo-jae or president Lee could freely dispose of, but were an asset specifically managed at the group level in connection with management succession.
There was a period when I sat on the first-instance bench of the Family Division 4 as an associate judge in this matter. I cannot speak to the specifics of deliberations. I can say that the panel examined the management structure precisely, considered together the circumstances under which Lim Woo-jaes contribution could not be evaluated as well as his asset losses, and reached that conclusion. The same view was maintained on appeal and at the Supreme Court.
What such examples show is that even with the same core stock, the management structure, the realistic disposability, and the degree of bundling with management succession can lead to different evaluations of separate-property character.
Implications for future chaebol divorces
I see the Lee Boo-jin Lim Woo-jae case as one whose facts are uniquely particular. Applying the same logic directly to other chaebol divorces is not easy. The Noh Soyoung Choi Tae-won case is more likely to be cited frequently in future chaebol divorces because it received full Supreme Court review.
That said, since the Noh case is also being reheard on remand, the 35 percent division ratio recognized on appeal is likely to come down. Removing slush-fund contribution mathematically reduces the ratio. Even so, I do not expect a return to the first-instance conclusion of excluding SK stock entirely as separate property. The Supreme Court flagged no problem with that part of the appellate finding.
Frequently asked questions
Q. Is company stock always separate property and not divided? A. No. Whether it was held before marriage, whether the company grew in value during marriage, whether the spouses direct or indirect contribution is recognized, and whether it is tied up in group-level management succession. The conclusion depends on these. Even shares of the same company can yield different conclusions.
Q. How much can be recovered in adultery damages? A. In ordinary cases, somewhere from tens of millions to around 100 million KRW is commonly recognized. The 20 billion KRW in the Noh case is exceptional and hard to generalize as a typical expectation.
Q. If there was contribution to slush-fund formation, is it counted in division? A. The Supreme Court in the Noh case held that contributions grounded in illegal causes are not recognized. Even with involvement, having that contribution evaluated in property division is difficult.
How to apply this to your own case
If you are facing a high-asset divorce, I recommend organizing two things first. First, identify the core assets and clarify their timing of formation and management structure. Second, list your contribution by category. Whether it is everyday homemaking, childcare, and spousal support, or direct participation in management or asset formation, or includes external contributions from a natal family. The evaluation differs.
Even in big-money divorces, the reason outcomes vary so much by case is that it comes down to how precisely the case-specific facts are unpacked to persuade the bench. The first thing an attorney looks at is that specificity, and the first thing a client should organize is also that specificity.
If you want to organize your asset structure and contribution items, you can also start a chat consultation now.
Yoon Ji-sang, Attorney / Jonjae Law Firm 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.
