SK Hynix Chair's $1B Divorce Heads to June 26 Trial Over Stock

SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and ex-wife Roh Soh-yeong return to the Seoul High Court on June 26, 2026, to resume dividing a record 1.38 trillion won (about $1 billion) estate after their first face-to-face meeting in two years collapsed without settlement. The central fight — whether Chey's SK shares are marital property — mirrors exactly how California courts treat business equity in high-net-worth divorces.

Key Facts

The dispute is, at its heart, a question that family-law attorneys across the United States and Canada confront constantly: when one spouse owns or builds a company during the marriage, how much of that equity belongs to the other spouse? According to Bloomberg, the couple's recent meeting — their first in two years — ended without a resolution, sending the property-division battle back to the courtroom on June 26.

Why this matters legally

The characterization of business shares as marital or separate property is the single most consequential question in nearly every high-net-worth divorce. The Chey case turns on whether his SK Inc. holdings — the foundation of a sprawling conglomerate that includes SK Hynix, one of the world's largest memory-chip makers — are joint marital assets or his separate property. That same characterization fight plays out in California courtrooms every day, just with smaller numbers.

When a company is founded or grows substantially during a marriage, the timing and source of that value determine who shares in it. Courts in community-property and equitable-distribution jurisdictions alike scrutinize three things: when the asset was acquired, what marital effort or funds contributed to its growth, and how much the value appreciated during the marriage. A billion-dollar Korean dispute and a $2 million California small-business divorce apply the same analytical framework, even though the dollar figures differ by three orders of magnitude.

How California law handles this

California is a community-property state, which means property acquired during marriage is presumed to be owned equally by both spouses and divided 50/50 at divorce under Cal. Fam. Code § 760. Property acquired before marriage, or received by gift or inheritance, is separate property under Cal. Fam. Code § 770 and is not divided.

The complication — and the part that resembles the Chey dispute — arises when a separately-owned business appreciates during the marriage. If Chey had founded his stake before marriage but it grew enormously afterward, a California court would not simply award it all to one spouse. Instead, California uses two competing apportionment formulas drawn from the cases Pereira v. Pereira (1909) 156 Cal. 1 and Van Camp v. Van Camp (1921) 53 Cal.App. 17.

Under the Pereira approach, a court allocates a fair rate of return to the separate-property investment and treats the remaining growth as community property — used when the owner-spouse's personal labor drove the company's success. Under Van Camp, the court values the spouse's reasonable salary as the community's share and leaves the rest as separate property — used when market forces or the business's inherent capital drove appreciation. A company like SK, whose value reflects both founder effort and massive capital, would trigger an intense fight over which formula applies.

California also reimburses separate-property contributions to community assets (and vice versa) under Cal. Fam. Code § 2640. And before any of this is litigated, both spouses must complete full financial disclosure under Cal. Fam. Code § 2104, exchanging declarations that list every asset and its value — the kind of disclosure that, when a billion-dollar conglomerate is involved, requires forensic accountants and business-valuation experts.

Practical takeaways

If you own a business, hold significant equity, or expect to divide complex assets in a California divorce, the Chey case offers concrete lessons:

1. Document the date and source of every major asset. Whether shares, a business interest, or real estate were acquired before or during marriage often decides whether they are divided. Keep founding documents, purchase records, and account statements.

2. Expect a valuation fight, not a simple split. Business interests rarely have a clean market price. California courts rely on forensic accountants to value closely-held companies, and the Pereira/Van Camp apportionment analysis can shift millions depending on which formula a judge adopts.

3. Take financial disclosure seriously. Cal. Fam. Code § 2104 requires complete, accurate preliminary disclosures. Hiding or undervaluing assets can result in the offending spouse forfeiting their entire interest in the concealed asset — a penalty California courts have imposed in extreme cases.

4. Consider a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. The cleanest way to keep a business separate is to say so in a valid agreement before or during marriage. Absent one, appreciation during marriage is fair game for apportionment.

5. Recognize that settlement usually beats trial. The Chey mediation failed, sending a record estate back to court. Litigation over business value is expensive, public, and unpredictable. Most high-net-worth California divorces settle precisely because neither side wants a judge guessing at a company's worth.

High-asset divorces are won or lost on documentation, valuation strategy, and disclosure discipline long before anyone reaches a courtroom. If you are facing a divorce that involves a business, significant stock, or complex appreciation questions, an experienced California family-law attorney can help you build the record and the valuation case you will need.

This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.