A divorce and property partitioning suit between Smilegate founder Kwon Hyuk-bin, chief vision officer (CVO), and spouse Ms. Lee is escalating into a conflict over a multitrillion-won corporate value. However, Kwon's side maintains that it does not want the divorce itself, while Lee's side is focusing on negotiating the property division.
◇ protect the family vs. gap in property division amount
The key issue at the third hearing on the 18th was the method for valuing Smilegate Holdings equity. The court is said to have assessed the value of the unlisted Smilegate Holdings through an external accounting firm appraisal at a minimum of 4.9 trillion won and up to about 8.016 trillion won. To partition property following a divorce, the total amount of assets subject to division must first be determined.
Lee's side argues that an assessment in the 8 trillion won range is reasonable using the discounted cash flow (DCF) method. By contrast, it says the lower bound of 4.9 trillion won is difficult to accept.
After supplemental appraisals, the valuation gap between the two sides is said to have narrowed to around 1 trillion won. Immediately after the hearing, Lee's representative said, "Based on Supreme Court precedents, we requested a revaluation, and the valuation presented by the other side has also risen to the high-6 trillion won range." In effect, the overall corporate value—the key variable that will determine the size of the property division—has been revised upward.
On the surface, this is a divorce suit, but in substance, it is being viewed as an M&A-level battle over corporate valuation. Because unlisted Smilegate Holdings has no market price, its value can vary significantly depending on the valuation method.
Kwon's side has directly and indirectly indicated there is no intent to divorce and is hoping the divorce claim will be dismissed. In fact, at this hearing, it did not conduct a separate presentation and said it would "leave it to the court's judgment" regarding the method of valuing the equity and the property partitioning issues.
◇ "ultra-luxury legal team" fully mobilized
Legal circles are focused on the strategies of the two sides' legal teams. The plaintiff chose a "package-type" strategy, broadly deploying experts in family, taxes, and succession, while the defendant opted for "selection and concentration" with specialists in control disputes and taxes.
Lee's side has assembled an "ultra-luxury legal team" of about 20 lawyers for an all-out effort. The plaintiff lineup—joined by law firms Gaon, Jonjae, Sungin, and DR & AJU, along with former presiding judge Jeong Hyun-su—forms a "full lineup" spanning family matters to taxes and corporate succession.
Sole representative counsel Jeong Hyun-su, along with Jonjae's Yoon Ji-sang and Sungin's CEO attorney Yang So-young—lawyers with extensive experience in family cases—were placed at the forefront. From tax-specialist Gaon, CEO attorney Kang Nam-gyu and former Director General judge Shin Dong-seung joined, and from DR & AJU, corporate succession center head Jeong Seong-tae and former judge Choi Tae-young joined to handle corporate value and succession issues.
By contrast, Kwon's side formed a legal team at Yoon & Yang LLC with strengths in asset disputes and taxes. Attorney Yang So-ra is a partner who has handled family cases such as divorce, inheritance, and reserved portions alongside control disputes.
Attorneys Lee Su-yeol and Park Jeong-dae are former Supreme Court research judges and former Director General judges, respectively, and are handling legal theory. Attorney Park Nam-ju covers taxes, asset management, and litigation, while attorney Jeon Wan-gyu is a tax expert focusing on corporate tax and international tax advisory.