Court Orders Choi Tae-won to Pay 944 Billion Won to Noh So-young

A South Korean court has ruled that Choi Tae-won, chairman of SK Group, must pay 944 billion won to Noh So-young, director of the Art Center Nabi.

The Seoul High Court's Family Division, led by Judge Lee Sang-joo, made the decision on July 24 during the remand hearing for the couple's property division lawsuit. The court also specified that a 5% annual interest on the payment would accrue from the day after the ruling until the full amount is paid.

The court determined that the SK stocks held by Choi are subject to division, stating, "The stocks were acquired during the marriage, and both Choi and Noh contributed to their formation and value maintenance."

The court set April 16, 2024, the date when the appeal hearing for the divorce case concluded, as the basis for assessing the value of the stocks. It referenced a Supreme Court ruling that states the value of divisible property should be determined as of the conclusion of the fact-finding phase of the divorce trial.

However, the court noted that the significant rise in stock prices after the conclusion of the appeal hearing would not be reflected in the valuation of divisible property but would be considered in determining the division ratio.

The division ratio was set at two-thirds for Choi and one-third for Noh. Choi's side argued that the SK stocks were unique property formed through inheritance and gifts, thus not subject to division, but the court acknowledged Noh's partial claim.

The court explained, "A significant portion of the couple's joint property was formed or acquired during the marriage." It added that the substantial increase in the value of Choi's stocks after the conclusion of the appeal hearing was also factored into the equitable distribution of the couple's joint property.

Noh's claim regarding former President Roh Tae-woo's 30 billion won slush fund was not recognized as a contribution by the court, following the Supreme Court's remand ruling last October.

The method of property division was determined to be a cash payment. The court stated, "Considering the intentions expressed by both parties regarding the division method and the fact that Choi's stocks are the basis for management and control, it was decided that Noh would receive the property division amount in cash."

After the ruling, Choi's attorney, Lee Jae-geun, expressed, "After nearly 20 years of marriage, the divorce was finalized last year with the Supreme Court ruling, and today we have the remand ruling on property division. Choi feels regret for causing concern to many during this process."

He added, "We will provide a specific position on the ruling after thoroughly reviewing the judgment document."

In contrast, Noh's attorney did not respond to questions regarding how they viewed the ruling or Noh's position.

This ruling comes nearly nine years after the couple's separation. Choi and Noh married in September 1998 but faced a breakdown in their relationship. In 2015, Choi publicly acknowledged the existence of an extramarital child.

Choi filed for divorce mediation in July 2017, but it failed, leading to formal litigation in February 2018. Noh countered with a lawsuit in 2019, stating she would agree to the divorce.

In a previous ruling, the first court ordered Choi to pay Noh 100 million won in alimony and 665 billion won in property division. The second court recognized Noh's contribution to the growth of SK Group and set the alimony at 2 billion won and the property division amount at 1.38 trillion won.

However, in October of last year, the Supreme Court upheld the 2 billion won alimony but ruled that the 30 billion won slush fund from former President Roh Tae-woo could not be considered a contribution by Noh, sending the case back to the Seoul High Court.

The remand court held its first hearing on January 9 and, after three months, referred the case for mediation. However, disagreements on key issues, including the division of SK stocks, led to the failure of mediation. Consequently, the court concluded the hearing process and decided to issue a ruling.

If either party disagrees with the ruling, they may appeal to the Supreme Court, indicating that further legal proceedings could follow.