As the first legal dispute over inheritance at the LG family involving management-control equity has come to a close, Chairman Koo Kwang-mo can put personal matters behind him and focus on running the group. Business realignment led by Koo and the push into the ABC (AI, bio, cleantech) new businesses are expected to pick up speed.
The Civil Division 11 of the Seoul Western District Court (presiding judge, Senior Judge Koo Kwang-hyeon) on the 12th dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs in the first-instance ruling in the inheritance dispute filed by the late former Chairman Koo Bon-moo's wife, Kim Young-sik; his younger sister, Koo Yeon-kyung, head of the LG Welfare Foundation; and Koo Yeon-su against Koo Kwang-mo, chairman of LG Group.
The court found that although the plaintiffs' claims were not time-barred, the inheritance property partitioning agreement that the plaintiffs attended was validly executed and there was no deceit in the process.
Koo became entangled in the inheritance lawsuit on Feb. 28, 2023. The three women filed suit against Koo, seeking to redivide the inheritance of about 2 trillion won left by the former chairman.
The assets left by the former chairman, who died in May 2018, are known to total about 2 trillion won, including an 11.28% stake in LG Corp. At the time of his death, the former chairman's LG Corp. equity was distributed not by the statutory inheritance ratio but through agreement among the heirs.
Of the 11.28% LG Corp. equity held by the former chairman, 8.76% went to Chairman Koo Kwang-mo. CEO Koo Yeon-kyung took 2.01%, Koo Yeon-su took 0.51%, and Ms. Kim did not inherit equity.
However, Ms. Kim's equity is 4.2%, the third largest after Chairman Koo Kwang-mo (15.95%) and Chairman Koo Bon-sik of LT Group (4.48%). In addition to LG Corp. shares, the three women also received an additional inheritance worth 500 billion won, including the former chairman's personal assets such as financial investment products, real estate, and artworks.
However, when filing the lawsuit, the three women argued that the partitioning was carried out without sufficient explanation and consent during the inheritance discussions. They said, "We yielded management-control equity believing there was a will, but in reality there was no legally valid will."
Their claim was that the 2018 agreement was void due to mistake or deceit. In an interview with the New York Times (NYT) in late 2023, they said Koo took a far larger share of the inheritance by skipping normal inheritance procedures.
◇ First inheritance dispute since the 1947 founding, Chairman Koo Kwang-mo "wins"
Since its founding in 1947, LG Group had never engaged in a legal battle over inheritance or management control across four generations of succession. In line with Confucian family traditions, it strictly adhered to the principle of primogeniture, and the Heo family, who were brothers and business partners, chose to avoid management-control disputes by spinning off as LS, GS, and LX. When the inheritance lawsuit was filed, LG Group responded, "Shaking the group's tradition and management control is unacceptable."
In the first-instance ruling, the court dismissed all claims by the three women, effectively siding with Koo in the inheritance dispute that rocked the LG family. First, the court held that the inheritance property division agreement was validly executed. The basis was that there was no dispute over the fact that the LG Group finance management team, entrusted by the plaintiffs, used their registered seals to affix stamps to the inheritance property division agreement.
Based on testimony from finance management team employees, the court said, "The plaintiffs received multiple briefings from the finance management team employees on the details of the inherited property and its partitioning and conducted inheritance property division talks with the defendant," adding, "It is reasonable to view that the finance management team, acting under the plaintiffs' authority, affixed the seals to the inheritance property division agreement."
The court also found it difficult to conclude, contrary to the plaintiffs' claims, that there was deceit in the drafting process of the inheritance property division agreement. The three women argued there was no legally valid will left by the former chairman, but the court did not accept that.
The court said, "The plaintiffs claim they affixed their seals to the inheritance property division agreement because the finance management team deceived them by saying there was a will or a memorandum of wishes stating 'all management assets, including LG Corp. shares, are to be inherited by the defendant,' but according to the finance management team employee's testimony, the former chairman left such wishes, and it should be deemed that a memorandum of wishes, recorded by the employee after hearing them, existed."
The court went on, "Even assuming such deceit existed, regardless of the existence of the memorandum of wishes or whether individual inherited assets constitute management assets, inheritance property division based on the plaintiffs' specific expressions of intent regarding individual assets—such as receiving LG Corp. shares—was carried out, so there is no causal link between the deceit and the inheritance property division agreement."
YulChon, the law firm representing Koo, said, "The court confirmed that the inheritance property division agreement was made in accordance with due process and reflected the parties' true intent."
◇ Chairman Koo Kwang-mo effectively out of a "management-control dispute"… ABC likely to accelerate
With this ruling, uncertainty in the governance of the Koo Kwang-mo leadership has been eased for now. Although the lawsuit was a family property dispute with Koo as the defendant, it was in effect a "management-control dispute" because LG Corp. equity was subject to partitioning. Accordingly, the management stance of "selection and concentration" that Koo has shown since taking office in June 2018 is expected to continue.
Since taking office, Koo has sold or downsized LG Group's underperforming businesses and focused on vehicle components as well as AI, bio, and cleantech. In 219, LG Electronics exited its fuel cell business and LG Display wound down its lighting OLED business. In 2020, LG Chem shut its polarizer business, and in 2021 LG Electronics closed its smartphone business. In 2022, LG Electronics further exited its solar panel business.
Instead, the vehicle components business, including batteries, is growing. As a result, LG Electronics' Vehicle Solution (VS) division, which had been in the red since its launch in 2013, posted 11.1357 trillion won in revenue and 559 billion won in operating profit in 2025. LG Energy Solution, which handles the battery business, recorded 1.3461 trillion won in annual operating profit in 2025.
To overhaul the group's structure, Koo designated ABC (AI, bio, cleantech), future advanced technologies, as new businesses. The plan is to pour more than 50 trillion won out of 100 trillion won in domestic investment into the three areas by 2028.
In AI, LG Group established its think tank "LG AI Research" in 2020 and is strengthening groupwide AI capabilities by advancing its proprietary large-scale AI model, the "EXAONE (LG AI Research)" series. Headcount at AI Research grew more than fourfold from 48 at its launch in Dec. 2020 to 205 by the end of 2025.
In bio, centered on LG Chem's life sciences division, the group has secured a new drug pipeline in cell therapies and oncology. It surpassed 1 trillion won in sales in 2023 and exported technology for a rare obesity treatment to a U.S. pharmaceutical company.
The cleantech field refers to eco-friendly, high value-added new businesses aligned with decarbonization, such as bio-based materials, waste-plastic recycling, and renewable energy transition. LG Group is strengthening its green value chain by investing not only in EV batteries but also in battery recycling startups.
A business community source said, "Although it is Koo's personal matter, any lawsuit related to management control is perceived as uncertainty not only within the group but also by investors," adding, "Even if it is not completely over, the first-instance ruling can serve as a chance to focus more on the core business."