SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won has decided to accept up to 700 billion Korean won of the 944 billion Korean won divorce property division amount ruled by the court for Roh Soh-yeong, director of the Art Center Nabi, and to seek a Supreme Court judgment only on the remaining 244 billion Korean won.
According to the legal community on the 9th, Chairman Chey’s side submitted a ‘petition to reduce the grounds for appeal’ containing this content to the Seoul High Court’s Family Division 1 (Judge Lee Sang-joo), which handled the retrial on the divorce property division at the end of last month. Chairman Chey’s side stated, “To promptly resolve the long-standing dispute, we will accept up to 700 billion Korean won, but we intend to contest the portion exceeding that as there are legal issues.”
It was reported that after the retrial ruling, Chairman Chey’s side proposed to Director Roh’s side a plan to pay part of the 944 billion Korean won in stocks, considering the time needed to prepare cash, but it was not accepted. Therefore, Chairman Chey’s side judged that it would be difficult to settle the dispute through agreement and appealed again, planning to argue for a reduction in the amount exceeding 700 billion Korean won.
Earlier, on July 24, the retrial court recognized that Director Roh was responsible for raising three children and managing the household for over 30 years of marriage, and participated in external activities related to SK Group, supporting Chairman Chey’s management activities. Thus, 33.3% of the couple’s joint property was acknowledged as Director Roh’s share.
In response, Chairman Chey appealed again on the 14th of last month. Chairman Chey’s side argued that even though the Supreme Court had ruled that the late former President Roh Tae-woo’s slush fund of 30 billion Korean won should not be recognized as Director Roh’s contribution to property, the retrial’s recognition of 33.3% for Director Roh was not valid. Chairman Chey’s side also claimed that the court’s reflection of the rise in SK Inc.’s stock price during the trial process when determining the property division ratio was incorrect.
Meanwhile, Director Roh’s side did not appeal by the deadline of August 14. However, they may submit an additional appeal (cross-appeal) in response to Chairman Chey’s initial appeal. The property division case between the two has not yet been filed with the Supreme Court.






Leave a comment