The 2 Billion Won Alimony Verdict and the Future of Adultery Lawsuits in Korea

When I first encountered news reports that alimony of 2 billion won had been awarded in the Choi Tae-won and Roh So-young case, I was more startled by the alimony portion than by the property-division amount. From a legal practitioner's view, this verdict stands at a potential starting point for a meaningful reconsideration of the alimony framework that has typically operated for adultery cases in Korea. This article puts the entire arc in one place, from the trajectory after the abolition of the adultery crime to the potential influence this case may exert on future similar matters.

The adultery crime was introduced together with the enactment of the Criminal Code in 1953 and was abolished after about 62 years by the Constitutional Court's unconstitutionality decision on May 26, 2015. Seven of the nine justices voted unconstitutional, and criminal punishment for adultery ended.

The core message highlighted in the video is this: the decision to abolish the adultery crime did not mean "no wrongdoing," but rather "an area that should be contested in civil rather than criminal proceedings."

• Good morals and protection of monogamy - the core argument on the constitutional side
• Sexual self-determination and the freedom of private life - the core argument on the unconstitutional side
• The era was assessed as having tipped toward the unconstitutional side in the collision of these two values

Side effects that typically occurred in the criminal-adultery era - blackmail through field exposure, pressure during property-division negotiations - were also raised as background to the abolition.

Article 810 of the Civil Code expressly prohibits bigamy: a person with a spouse may not remarry. Under Korean family-relations registration practice, bigamy is typically hard to occur, but there are cases in which dual marriages arise through foreign marriage filings. In such cases the subsequent marriage is not legally protected.

Statutory marriage and de facto marriage are substantively similar in many respects, but a "bigamous de facto marriage" is different. A de facto marriage formed while a statutory spouse exists typically does not give rise to claims for alimony or property division. The fact that the cohabiting partner in this case is not a statutory spouse connects to this same line.

Adultery is one of the statutory grounds for judicial divorce. And when the adulterous spouse instead files for divorce - i.e., when the at-fault spouse files for divorce - the petition is typically denied. The Supreme Court has long maintained this position.

In this case Chairman Choi Tae-won was the adulterous, at-fault spouse. Had Director Roh So-young not consented to divorce, the first-instance petition would likely have been denied. Because she did consent to the divorce petition, the divorce became possible despite Choi being the at-fault spouse.

The typical alimony flow organized in the video is as follows.

• The adulterous spouse - typically around 30 million won, with exceptional lower-court trends up to about 50 million won.
• The adultery partner - joint tortfeasor liability with the adulterous spouse, typically a lower-court trend of about 20-40 million won.
• In ordinary adultery cases, examples exceeding 100 million won have typically been rare.

These amounts have long been criticized as relatively small for an institution whose original meaning is "recovery from mental harm." The point emphasized in the video is that the absolute conservatism of alimony amounts has, as a consequence, weakened the function of private deterrence.

The 2 billion won alimony recognized by the appellate court in this case far exceeds the typical benchmarks. The background circumstances are summarized below.

• An assessment that he had effectively negated monogamy over an extended period.
• An assessment that there was no expression of contrition for the adultery, and that he had instead publicly stated his position.
• The fact that a child was born from the adultery.
• The above circumstances drew criticism from the appellate panel.

What the video emphasizes, however, is that this case does not directly raise the alimony benchmark for ordinary adultery cases. For alimony increases to diffuse across society, the following flow typically needs to operate together.

• Substantive Supreme Court review and explicit ruling (a merits decision rather than dismissal of further review).
• Citation by other panels in subsequent rulings.
• Social discussion and a re-examination of alimony benchmarks across the courts as a whole.

The wish attorney Yoon Jisang emphasizes in the video is for the Supreme Court not to dismiss this case for further review and to address it in detail.

Another issue addressed in the video is "whether adultery can affect property division." Typical practice has maintained that "property division and alimony are separate." Some panels, however, have shown a view of reflecting it in the property-division ratio in the following circumstances.

• Where the adulterous spouse provided substantial material support to the adultery partner.
• Where such support caused a reduction in the marital common property.

In this case the appellate court found that about 21.9 billion won had flowed to the adultery partner. If this kind of trajectory is explicitly addressed by the Supreme Court, it could have meaningful influence on future property-division practice in adultery cases.

When clients consider an adultery lawsuit, we review the following points together.

• Whether evidence of the adultery is objectively secured.
• Whether the client intends to maintain the marriage or whether divorce should be pursued together.
• Whether to sue only the adultery partner or both the spouse and the adultery partner.
• The range of alimony typically recognized in matters with your fact pattern, and any aggravating grounds that can be proved.

Q. If I knew about my spouse's adultery and continued to live together for a while, is it hard to claim alimony? A. Typically, that period may be read as "forgiveness" or "intent to maintain the marriage," which can limit the recognized alimony range. Outcomes vary case by case, so the surrounding circumstances showing your expressed intent become decisive.

Q. If the adultery partner claims they did not know about the existence of the marriage, is the partner not liable? A. The adultery partner is typically liable where "they knew or could have known of the existence of the marriage." Whether the awareness can be proved through objective circumstances - shared residence, social relationships, message records - is the core question.

If you would like a brief check on the range within which adultery alimony might be recognized in your matter, you can share just the outline of the facts at starting a chat consultation now.

Attorney Yoon Jisang / Jonjae Law Firm, Family and Inheritance Team Former presiding judge, family and inheritance counsel team Last reviewed 2026-05-30

This article provides general legal information and does not substitute for legal advice on a specific case. Outcomes vary with the facts, so we recommend a separate consultation for any concrete dispute.

Alimony is not merely a matter of monetary compensation; it also carries the meaning of having one's mental harm formally recognized by the court. For that reason, securing objective circumstantial evidence that affects the alimony amount is typically recommended in the video.

In addition, the issue highlighted in this case - "marital common property that flowed to the adultery partner" - can be used as a ground for adjusting the property-division ratio in your case. If such arguments accumulate into a broader flow, they can influence the judgments of other panels. We recommend reviewing how the message of this video might apply to your own matter.