The Supreme Court will hand down its ruling on the appeal in the divorce case between Chey Tae-won, chairman of SK Group, and Noh So-young, director of Art Center Nabi, on the 16th. The case saw a vast gap between the first- and second-instance rulings. The first-instance court said Chairman Chey should pay Director Noh 65.5 billion won in property division, but the appellate court said he should pay 1.38 trillion won in property division. The case went up to the Supreme Court after only Chairman Chey appealed. Attention is on what conclusion the Supreme Court will reach, such as dismissing the appeal or remanding the case.
◇ Property division: first-instance 65.5 billion won vs. appellate 1.38 trillion won… the conclusion rests with four justices
The case drew public attention for the divorce of a conglomerate chairman and his wife, the astronomical scale of the property division, and whether to recognize the slush funds of Director Noh's late father, former President Roh Tae-woo. As a result, there was speculation that the full bench of the Supreme Court, with all 13 justices including the chief justice participating, would hear the case.
However, the case ultimately came to be heard by a petty bench composed of four justices. The Supreme Court's First Petty Bench, with Presiding Justice Seo Kyung-hwan and Justices Noh Tae-ak, Shin Sook-hee, and Ma Yong-joo, decided to deliver the ruling.
On this, a legal professional who previously served as a Supreme Court research judge said, "There are largely two implications to handing down the ruling in a petty bench rather than the full bench." First, it means the four justices of the First Petty Bench must be in agreement. This is because if even one justice in the petty bench expresses a different view, the case must go up to the full bench. The legal professional said, "Whatever conclusion the First Petty Bench reaches—remand, dismissal of the appeal, etc.—it will be a unanimous opinion of its four justices."
◇ "A case that does not require changing existing Supreme Court precedents"
It can also be seen to mean that the Supreme Court did not need to change existing precedents in the divorce case of Chairman Chey and Director Noh, so a petty bench would hear it. If the legal principle for assessing Director Noh's contribution to Chairman Chey's accumulation of assets had to be changed, the full bench would have to hear the case. A legal professional said, "Although the case will ultimately be ruled on by a petty bench, it is known that all the justices reviewed it once beforehand."
The key issue in the case is whether to include SK Corp. shares held by Chairman Chey in the property division. The first-instance court previously found that SK Corp. shares were not subject to property division, but the appellate court overturned that view.
Under existing Supreme Court precedents, assets that one spouse possessed before marriage or acquired through inheritance or gift are, in principle, not subject to property division. However, if it is recognized that those assets were maintained or increased thanks to the other spouse's contribution, they exceptionally become subject to division.
A legal professional who served as a Supreme Court research judge said, "The difference between the first- and second-instance rulings stems not from different interpretations of legal principles but from differing views on the facts of whether Director Noh contributed to Chairman Chey's asset growth." The professional added, "If the matter can be sufficiently resolved through inference or elaboration under the extension of legal principles formed by existing precedents, there is no need to refer it to the full bench."
Meanwhile, some analysts say the Supreme Court may also have considered that the case is unlikely to affect the lives of most of the public. The divorce case of Chairman Chey and Director Noh drew attention as a rare example in which the marriage between a business leader and the child of a politician collapsed and an astronomical property division became the focus of dispute. Because such cases are almost nonexistent, it should not be seen as a matter that affects the general public to a degree warranting a full-bench ruling.