Matrimonial Property, Corporate Wealth, Political Connections and Judicial Discretion in the Chey Tae-won–Roh So-yeong Divorce

Divorce is usually understood as the legal dissolution of a marriage. But what happens when a marriage involves one of South Korea’s largest corporate fortunes?

The divorce battle between Chey Tae-won, chairman of SK Group, and Roh So-yeong, daughter of former South Korean President Roh Tae-woo, demonstrates how a private marital dispute can become a complex question of family law, property law, corporate ownership, valuation, and evidence.

The case has attracted attention because of its personal controversy: Chey publicly acknowledged an extramarital relationship and a child outside the marriage. But the more significant legal battle concerns what happened to the couple’s enormous wealth after their marriage ended.

The numbers demonstrate the scale of the dispute. In 2022, the Seoul Family Court initially ordered a 66.5 billion won property division. In 2024, the Seoul High Court increased this to about 1.38 trillion won. After the Supreme Court sent the property issue back for reconsideration, the Seoul High Court ordered Chey to pay Roh 944 billion won in July 2026.

The Legal Foundation: Article 839-2 of the Korean Civil Act

The starting point for analysing the case is Article 839-2 of the Korean Civil Act, which governs the division of property following divorce.

Article 839-2 provides that where spouses cannot agree on property division, the Family Court determines the amount and method of division, taking into account property acquired through the parties’ cooperation and other relevant circumstances.

The provision is particularly important because Korean law does not simply operate on the assumption that every asset held by one spouse is automatically divided equally.

Instead, the court must consider the contribution of both spouses.

This creates a legal distinction between:

• property that is legally separate;
• property accumulated during the marriage;
• property acquired through inheritance or gifts;
• property whose value increased during the marriage; and
• property accumulated through the cooperation of both spouses.

For a billionaire, this distinction can mean hundreds of billions of won.

Article 843: Property Division After Judicial Divorce

The legal framework is reinforced by Article 843 of the Korean Civil Act.

Article 843 specifically states that Article 839-2 applies to a claim for property division following a judicial divorce. It also includes Article 839-3 in respect of the preservation of a property division claim.

This is very important in the Chey-Roh case as the parties did not just agree privately on the distribution of their wealth. The case was fought through and eventually reached the Supreme Court.

So the court needed to determine, “What property exists?” “Which property is legally relevant?” “What contribution did each spouse make?” “How should that property be divided?”

These are questions of law as much as questions of money.

Article 839-3: Protecting the Matrimonial Estate 

Billionaire divorce creates another problem: asset disposal.

Where enormous wealth is involved, the law must address the possibility that assets could be transferred or disposed of before the court determines the property division.

Article 839-3 of the Korean Civil Act provides a mechanism to challenge certain property transactions undertaken with knowledge that they could obstruct the other spouse’s property-division claim. 

This provision is particularly significant in high-net-worth divorce because wealth can exist through:

• company shares;
• investment accounts;
• private companies;
• real estate;
• trusts and investment structures; and
• transfers to third parties.

The provision therefore reflects a wider principle:

A legal right to matrimonial property must be capable of effective protection and enforcement.

The Chey Tae-won, Roh So-yeong Marriage

Chey Tae-won and Roh So-yeong married in 1988 and have three children.

The marriage began to break down years before the formal divorce proceedings. In 2015, Chey publicly disclosed that he had an extramarital partner and a child outside the marriage.

Chey initiated divorce proceedings in 2017. Roh subsequently pursued her own claims concerning divorce and property division. The litigation ultimately became a dispute involving SK Group-related wealth and the contribution of each spouse to the family’s assets. The personal scandal attracted headlines.

The legal question, however, was much more complicated:

What portion of Chey’s corporate wealth could legally be treated as property subject to division?

Matrimonial Property Versus Separate Property

One of the primary concerns centered on the handling of Chey’s shares in SK Inc.

Chey contended that some shares were linked to assets obtained through inheritance or gifts and should not be treated as marital property.

On the other hand, Roh argued that these shares ought to be factored into the total assessment of property available for division, considering both partners’ contributions throughout their marriage.

Thus, the court needed to investigate not only who owned the shares but also how the wealth associated with those shares was created and maintained.

In July 2026, the Seoul High Court ruled that Chey’s SK Inc. shares must be included in the property-division calculation. The court awarded Roh one-third of this relevant property and Chey two-thirds. Chey must then satisfy Roh’s share by paying cash instead of transferring the shares.

This differentiation is crucial. Ownership of an asset does not decide how that asset should be treated in matrimonial property proceedings.

The Value of Unpaid Work

The case also highlights a more complex challenge regarding marital contributions. A spouse’s contribution to family wealth is not necessarily defined simply by earning a paycheck or owning stocks. Spouses can contribute by raising children, managing household duties, supporting the other spouse’s career, handling family responsibilities, and creating an environment that helps the other spouse accumulate wealth. In its 2026 ruling, the Seoul High Court acknowledged Roh’s efforts in household management, family support, and maintaining her marriage when deciding if she is entitled to the money. This raises a big question in family law: “Is unpaid domestic work regarded as having economic value, especially when one spouse’s work makes them rich?” This is particularly relevant in high-net-worth divorces in which the separation of spouses is so big that it is difficult to measure indirect contributions.

The 30-Billion-Won Political Connection 

The main legal problem is the alleged financial transfer of Roh Tae-woo, father of Roh So-yeong and former President of South Korea. In 2024, the Seoul High Court linked the alleged fund to the accumulation of SK’s wealth, so Roh received about 1.38 trillion won in property division. In fact, the Supreme Court later refused to consider the lower court’s classification of the alleged illicit fund and declared the case a matter for further study. A financial transfer does not necessarily count as a legally acknowledged contribution to marital assets.

Articles 103 and 746: When the Source of Wealth Matters

The debate also discusses two articles from the Korean Civil Act.

Article 103: Act against Social Order. This article deals with legal action that violates good morals or breaks the social order.

Article 746: Benefit Conferred for an Illegal Cause. This article deals with situations where property or benefits are given in relation to an illegal cause. 

These articles are relevant to the Supreme Court’s rationale regarding the purported funds associated with Roh Tae-woo. The legal basis is really that a court cannot automatically regard a supposedly illegal financial benefit as a standard contribution to marital assets because of how the money eventually goes to family wealth. It’s one of the case’s most intriguing legal aspects, because it turns divorce law into a question of whether the judiciary should consider an asset whose claimed origin is illegal.

The Supreme Court’s Intervention

The Supreme Court is really a landmark for the distinction between fact-finding and legal assessment. Rather than simply substituting the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court found legal issues in how the property division was calculated and remanded it for further review. In the meantime, the divorce proceedings are complete, and the alimony award of 2 billion won has been received, but the property division remains to be examined. This difference is, of course, very important. Divorce: in this case, the marital relationship is dissolved. Alimony/Damages: the court weighs what legal implications might arise with the dissolution of the marriage. Property Division: the court decides what assets may be divided and what amounts to give out. All these topics are interrelated, but they represent distinct legal questions.

From 66.5 Billion to 1.38 Trillion to 944 Billion Won

Few aspects of litigation demonstrate judicial discretion as well as the changing awards.

Judicial Stage 

Property Division

• Seoul Family Court: 2022: 66.5 billion won
• Seoul High Court: 2024: 1.38 trillion won
• Seoul High Court: July 2026: 944 billion won

These amounts have varied due to different evaluations by the courts of the relevant property, contributions made, and categorization of specific assets.

This is more than a numerical tale; it exemplifies how legal classifications can impact financial results.

An asset that is considered separate property might be excluded from division. On the other hand, if the same asset is recognized as acquired through marital collaboration, it could significantly increase the matrimonial estate.

The Valuation Problem

There is an important legal issue that often lies beneath the surface in high-net-worth divorces: “When is it appropriate to measure the value of billions?”

The share price of shares in publicly traded companies can fluctuate greatly throughout legal proceedings.

In the 2026 remand ruling, the Seoul High Court set April 16, 2024, as the critical date for share valuation based on reports about the decision. The court also considered the rise in share prices when deciding on asset division.

This is an example that valuation goes beyond accounting.

Consider this hypothetical situation: At the start of divorce proceedings, one spouse holds shares valued at ₩1 trillion. During the process of litigation, those shares appreciate to ₩1.5 trillion.

Who benefits from it?

Was it due to market fluctuations? The company’s performance in business operations? The spouse’s management efforts? Contributions from the other spouse? The decision on these factors can significantly affect the financial settlement by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Corporate Control Versus Matrimonial Rights

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of divorces involving billionaires is that the assets in question generally include a controlling interest in a corporation.

Unlike personal property like furniture or a family residence, corporate shares cannot be treated in the same way by the court.

The transfer of shares can determine many of those aspects, such as:

• Voting rights  
• Management authority  
• Shareholder composition  
• Corporate governance practices  
• Overall company stability 

As a result, the Seoul High Court decided on a cash settlement instead of SK shares.

This situation generates a nice overlap between two different areas of law:

Family law involves the question, “What entitlements does the spouse have?

Corporate law considers: What implications arise for the company if ownership is changed?”

The court needs to look at the legal aspects of a divorce involving billionaires as well.

The Legal Battle Is Not About Infidelity Alone

Public discourse on the Chey-Roh affair focuses on Chey’s affair, but from a legal point of view, infidelity should be treated as separate from the division of assets. The primary financial question is not: “Who bears moral responsibility for the dissolution?” It is “What assets are legally eligible for division, what contributions did each partner make, and what solution does the law allow?” The Chey case illustrates the importance of not focusing on a sensational personal story, but on the legal considerations.

The Current Position: September 2026

The recent turn of events is certainly unusual.

In July 2026, the Seoul High Court ordered Chey to pay a total of 944 billion won as part of the property division.

By September 2026, Chey’s legal representatives indicated that Chey would accept 700 billion won but would contest the remaining 244 billion won in the Supreme Court.

As such, any article from September 2026 that would falsely portray the 944-billion-won amount as an undisputed final settlement would be misleading.

The current status is as follows:

Divorce: Completed. Alimony: Set at 2 billion won, finalized. Latest property division ruling: 944 billion won. 

Amount agreed by Chey: 700 billion won. Amount still under dispute: 244 billion won. 

Supreme Court appeals: Ongoing.

Billionaire divorce turns ordinary family law questions into corporate ownership, asset classification, valuation, inheritance, evidence, and judicial discretion. The Chey Tae-won-Roh So-yeong case is a striking example. What started out as a breakdown of a marriage became a legal matter about corporate wealth, a spouse’s contribution to a company, the legal treatment of an alleged illegal financial transfer, and the value of shares in one of South Korea’s largest corporations. The rise from 66.5 billion won to 1.38 trillion won, and finally 944 billion won, shows how dramatically the legal classification of assets and contributions can affect the outcome. The case ultimately relates to a question that is far beyond South Korea. Should the law divide only the wealth that can be directly traced to the spouses’ joint productive activity, or should it also recognize the invisible contributions that enabled extraordinary wealth to be created and preserved? For billionaire couples, the answer may be worth billions. And that is exactly where divorce stops being a private family dispute and becomes a legal battle over wealth, ownership, and corporate power.