South Korea's largest divorce escalated on June 15, 2026, when SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and ex-wife Roh Soh-yeong failed court mediation, and the Seoul High Court set June 26 to resume hearings on a property award originally set at 1.38 trillion won ($929M). For California residents, the case illustrates a core principle: when one spouse builds a business empire during marriage, the other may claim a share of that growth.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Chey Tae-won and Roh Soh-yeong failed to settle through court-ordered mediation; property division remains unresolved |
| When | Mediation failed June 15, 2026; next hearing June 26, 2026 |
| Where | Seoul High Court, South Korea (divorce retrial) |
| Who's affected | SK Group Chairman (17.9% stake at risk) and his ex-wife, daughter of a former South Korean president |
| Key issue | Supreme Court remanded the original 1.38 trillion won ($929M) award over a flawed "slush fund" valuation |
| Impact | Outcome could affect control of South Korea's second-largest conglomerate |
According to Bloomberg, the former couple came face-to-face for the first time in two years but could not reach agreement, leaving the Seoul High Court to decide how to divide property after South Korea's Supreme Court sent the case back for recalculation.
Why this matters legally
This case shows that the most contested issue in a high-asset divorce is rarely whether to divide property — it is how to value the appreciation of a business built during the marriage. The Supreme Court's remand turned on a valuation error, not on the principle of sharing. That distinction matters everywhere, including California.
In South Korea, marital property is divided based on each spouse's contribution, and courts can consider a spouse's indirect contributions to a business empire. The retrial centers on whether the lower court correctly traced the source and growth of Chey's wealth, including disputed funds tied to his father. When a $929M award hinges on a valuation methodology, the lesson is universal: in divorces involving privately held companies, the fight is won or lost on expert valuation and the tracing of separate versus marital assets.
California courts confront the same battle constantly. The framework differs, but the central question — how much of a business's growth belongs to the marriage — is identical.
How California law handles this
California would treat this dispute under community property rules, not a contribution-based equitable model. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 760, all property acquired during marriage is community property, divided equally (50/50) at divorce. Property owned before marriage, or received by gift or inheritance, is separate property under Cal. Fam. Code § 770 and is not divided.
The complication mirrors the SK case: a business often starts as separate property but grows enormously during the marriage through a spouse's labor. California resolves this with two apportionment formulas established by case law. Under the Pereira approach, courts assign a fair return to the separate-property investment and treat the remaining growth as community property — used when the spouse's personal effort drove the growth. Under the Van Camp approach, courts value the spouse's labor as a salary, allocate that to the community, and treat the rest of the appreciation as separate property — used when market forces or the business's own capital drove the growth.
California also requires full financial transparency. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 2104, each spouse must serve a preliminary declaration of disclosure listing all assets and liabilities. A spouse who hides assets — the "slush fund" concern at the heart of the SK retrial — faces severe penalties under Cal. Fam. Code § 1101, which allows a court to award the wronged spouse up to 100% of any deliberately concealed asset. In the 2002 Feldman case, a California court imposed sanctions exceeding $390,000 for disclosure violations.
Division itself follows Cal. Fam. Code § 2550, which directs courts to divide the community estate equally absent a written agreement or specific exceptions. A 17.9% corporate stake acquired or grown during marriage would be squarely in play, with the equal-division mandate applying to its community portion.
Practical takeaways
-
Identify and document separate property early. If you owned a business or shares before marriage, gather records establishing the pre-marriage value. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 770, tracing that origin is what protects the separate portion from a 50/50 split.
-
Hire a forensic business valuation expert. The SK retrial collapsed over valuation methodology. In California, the choice between Pereira and Van Camp apportionment can shift millions, so retain a qualified appraiser before litigation hardens positions.
-
Complete disclosures honestly and completely. Cal. Fam. Code § 2104 requires full asset disclosure, and Cal. Fam. Code § 1101 lets a court award up to 100% of any concealed asset to the other spouse. Concealment is the costliest mistake in a high-asset case.
-
Consider a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. A valid agreement can define a business as separate property and pre-set how appreciation is treated, avoiding the apportionment fight entirely. California enforces these when they meet statutory and procedural requirements.
-
Try mediation, but prepare for trial. The SK parties attempted mediation and failed, then proceeded to a hearing. California strongly encourages settlement, but high-asset cases often require litigation-ready valuation evidence even while negotiating.
If you are facing a divorce involving a business, professional practice, or significant appreciated assets, the valuation and tracing decisions you make early will shape the outcome. A California family law attorney who handles complex-asset cases can help you protect what is legitimately separate while meeting your disclosure obligations.
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.