SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won submitted a request for a retrial to the Supreme Court at 11:59 PM on the 14th, just one minute before the deadline. While the official filing occurred on that evening, the method of submission—directly to the office rather than electronically—kept the details from the press until the last moment. This timing has led to speculation within legal circles that the intention was to delay public disclosure as much as possible.
Despite the late announcement, internal court assessments reportedly indicated a high probability of a favorable outcome for the retrial. A significant factor in this calculation is the substantial interest that accrues on the assets subject to division. With a statutory interest rate of 5% per annum applied from the confirmation of the judgment until the date of payment, the daily interest on approximately 944 billion won (nearly 1 trillion won) in assets could amount to about 130 million won. This delay, therefore, offers a considerable financial advantage by deferring these interest payments.
Strategic Timing and Asset Division in Divorce Cases
The retrial request is not solely a tactic to buy time. The process of asset division in divorce proceedings, especially when stock prices fluctuate, involves complex considerations regarding the valuation date and method of division. These issues have broader implications and can set precedents for other divorce cases.
Chairman Chey’s stance is that the SK shares, accumulated through inheritance and gifts, should not be subject to division. However, the court has included these shares in the assets to be divided, both in the initial ruling and the subsequent retrial request. The crux of the dispute lies in determining the appropriate valuation date for these assets.
The Valuation Date Dilemma
According to Supreme Court precedents, the valuation date for asset division in divorce cases is typically the date the court concludes its factual inquiry in the first instance. For the SK shares, this would correspond to April 16, 2024. At that time, SK’s stock price was around 160,000 won, valuing Chairman Chey’s holdings at approximately 2.6 trillion won.
However, driven by a surge in the semiconductor market, SK’s stock price, along with that of Hynix, climbed significantly. By the end of June, during the period when the retrial was being processed, SK’s stock had risen to 800,000 won. This dramatic increase means the valuation of the assets could differ by more than fivefold depending on the chosen reference point.
The phrase ‘at the conclusion of the factual inquiry in the first instance’ favors Chairman Chey, while ‘at the conclusion of the factual inquiry in the retrial’ is seen as more advantageous for the opposing party. The retrial request opted for the former.
Generally, when a divorce case is finalized, the date of the conclusion of the first instance factual inquiry is considered the standard for asset division. However, in cases of retrial, like this one, using the conclusion of the retrial’s factual inquiry as the benchmark is rare. This is because the court’s decision in the retrial itself is often based on the initial ruling’s conclusion date.
Incorporating Post-Divorce Asset Appreciation
A key issue is whether to include asset appreciation that occurs after a divorce is finalized but before the asset division is settled. The question is whether gains accrued after the couple’s relationship has effectively ended should be shared.
The opposing party’s position, supported by a 2025 Supreme Court decision (Supreme Court Decision 2025 Da 595), suggests that post-separation gains or losses on assets, such as real estate, should be considered in the asset division calculation if attributing them solely to one party would conflict with the principle of equitable division of joint marital property.
This precedent acknowledges that while the primary valuation date is the date of separation, subsequent market fluctuations can be factored in to ensure fairness. However, it also notes that Chairman Chey’s business acumen contributed to the stock price increase, suggesting that a direct application of this precedent might not be entirely appropriate, though it could influence the division ratio.
Consequently, the proposed division ratio is one-third (33.3%) for the opposing party and two-thirds (66.7%) for Chairman Chey. This is nearly consistent with the pre-retrial ruling, which allocated 35% to the opposing party and 65% to Chairman Chey.
Precedents in Asset Division Disputes
The SK Group chairman’s side has not yet publicly detailed their specific claims following the retrial filing. However, the inclusion of stock price increases after the divorce in the asset division ratio is expected to be a significant point of contention.
Typically, the scope of divisible assets is determined first, followed by the division ratio based on each party’s contribution. The argument against including post-ruling stock gains hinges on the principle that such appreciation occurred after the marital relationship had effectively ended, and thus, the opposing party made no contribution to these gains.
This issue has been a recurring point of contention in numerous divorce cases. A notable Supreme Court ruling from July 2023 (Supreme Court Case 2017 Meu 11856) addressed a similar situation involving a couple who married in 2003 and divorced by agreement in 2006 but continued to live together, maintaining a de facto marital relationship. The wife initiated divorce proceedings in May 2013, effectively ending their de facto union.
The husband sought a division of assets, including two apartments registered in the wife’s name. At the time of separation in May 2013, the apartments were valued at 602.5 million won and 600 million won, respectively. However, by the conclusion of the second instance trial in March 2017, their values had risen to 930 million won and 910 million won.
The first instance court divided the assets based on the May 2013 values, ordering the wife to pay the husband 266.42 million won. The second instance court, however, factored in the post-separation appreciation of the apartments, basing the division on the March 2017 values and ordering the wife to pay 489 million won. This significant increase led the case to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that while the standard for asset division in de facto divorces is the date of separation, subsequent appreciation of assets like real estate could be considered if attributing the entire gain to one party would be inequitable. The Court upheld the second instance ruling, acknowledging that the post-separation increase in apartment values should be factored into the asset division to ensure a fair distribution.
This principle suggests that in Chairman Chey’s case, the appreciation of SK shares after the conclusion of the first instance factual inquiry (April 2024) could potentially be included in the asset division calculation.
Contribution vs. Market Fluctuation
From Chairman Chey’s perspective, arguing against the inclusion of post-ruling stock gains might be feasible, especially if the court’s decision to consider such appreciation is based on the principle of preventing unfair gains. The retrial ruling in 2025 (Supreme Court Decision 2025 Da 595) also cited the 2023 precedent.
In another case, a couple divorced by agreement in September 2022. An apartment purchased for 193.6 million won in December 2021 was valued at 267.5 million won in September 2022. However, by the conclusion of the second instance trial in November 2024, its value had dropped to 190 million won.
The second instance court used the September 2022 value as the benchmark for asset division, even though the market value had decreased by the trial’s conclusion. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The rationale was that using the peak value when the market price had subsequently fallen would unfairly disadvantage the party who would have to pay the difference.
Conclusion: Navigating Complex Asset Division
The core principle underlying these legal decisions is the prevention of undue advantage or disadvantage to either party due to post-marital asset fluctuations. While the standard practice is to determine asset values at a specific point in time, courts have shown flexibility to ensure equitable outcomes.
The question of whether to consider asset value or contribution ratio when dividing assets remains a complex legal issue. While theoretically distinct, the value and ratio of division can influence each other in specific cases. Legal experts note that while a clear separation between asset valuation and division ratio is ideal, real-world cases often involve intertwined factors.
The SK Group chairman’s retrial request highlights the intricate nature of asset division in high-profile divorce cases, particularly in volatile market conditions. The outcome of this case could provide significant guidance for numerous other divorce proceedings navigating post-marital asset changes, emphasizing the need for fairness and equity in the division of marital property.
