South Korean SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won's divorce from Roh Soh-yeong now turns on a single question: which date the court uses to value his SK Inc. shares. After mediation collapsed on June 15, 2026, his stake — worth between 2 trillion and over 7 trillion won depending on the date chosen — could force the AI-chip mogul to sell shares and lose control of South Korea's second-largest conglomerate. For California spouses, the same valuation-date fight determines who profits from a stock's rise.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Mediation in Chey Tae-won's divorce from Roh Soh-yeong collapsed; property division is the only remaining issue |
| When | Mediation failed June 15, 2026; hearings resume June 26, 2026 |
| Where | Seoul, South Korea (Chey chairs SK Group, parent of SK Hynix) |
| Who's affected | Chey Tae-won, ex-wife Roh Soh-yeong, and SK Group shareholders |
| Core dispute | Which date values his SK Inc. shares — value ranges from 2 trillion to 7+ trillion won |
| Practical impact | A high payout could force Chey to sell or pledge shares, threatening conglomerate control |
Bloomberg reported on June 15, 2026 that the couple failed to resolve their dispute through mediation, leaving the valuation date as the decisive issue when hearings resume.
Why this matters legally
The valuation date is the most consequential decision in any divorce involving appreciating assets. In the Chey case, SK Inc. shares quadrupled since 2024 on the AI memory-chip boom, meaning the gap between an early valuation date and a current one represents trillions of won. The same legal principle governs California divorces: when one spouse holds stock, business equity, or other volatile assets, the date the court assigns a value can shift the outcome by hundreds of thousands — or millions — of dollars.
This is not a foreign-law curiosity. California courts confront identical disputes whenever a divorcing spouse owns founder shares, restricted stock units, or a closely held company that gained value during the separation period. The party whose effort or market timing drove the appreciation typically argues for the earlier date; the other spouse argues for the date closest to trial. The Chey divorce simply scales this universal problem to a conglomerate-controlling stake.
How California law handles this
California generally values community-property assets as close to the trial date as practicable, under Cal. Fam. Code § 2552. Subsection (a) directs courts to value assets and liabilities "as near as practicable to the time of trial," which often captures market appreciation that occurred after the spouses physically separated. This default rule would, in a California version of the Chey case, favor the lower-earning spouse seeking a share of the stock's run-up.
However, Cal. Fam. Code § 2552(b) lets a party request an alternate valuation date upon a showing of good cause, where doing so would accomplish a more equitable division. California courts routinely use this provision to value a business at separation rather than trial when one spouse's post-separation labor — not market forces — drove the increase. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 771, earnings and accumulations after the date of separation are separate property, so a court must distinguish gains from market appreciation versus gains from a spouse's continued work.
California is a community-property state under Cal. Fam. Code § 760, meaning property acquired during marriage is owned equally (50/50) by both spouses. Where stock was acquired during marriage, both the shares and much of their appreciation are community property subject to equal division — making the valuation date the central battleground, exactly as in the Chey dispute. The characterization analysis under Cal. Fam. Code § 2581 further governs how jointly titled assets are presumed community property absent a written agreement.
Unlike South Korea, where courts weigh each spouse's contribution to determine a discretionary division percentage, California starts from a mandatory 50/50 split of community assets. That structural difference means a California Chey would face a more predictable share but the same valuation-date fight over how much that share is actually worth.
Practical takeaways
-
Identify the valuation date early. If you or your spouse owns stock, RSUs, or a business that may appreciate, raise the Cal. Fam. Code § 2552 valuation-date question at the outset — it can swing the division by six or seven figures.
-
Document the date of separation precisely. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 771, post-separation earnings are separate property. A clear, provable separation date protects appreciation driven by your own post-separation efforts.
-
Distinguish market gains from labor gains. California courts treat passive market appreciation differently from value created by a spouse's continued work. Preserve records showing what drove a stock or business increase.
-
Get a qualified valuation expert. In high-asset divorces, a forensic accountant or business-valuation expert is often decisive. Courts rely heavily on expert testimony when applying Cal. Fam. Code § 2552(b).
-
Consider a stipulated valuation date. Spouses can agree in writing on a valuation date, removing uncertainty and litigation cost. A negotiated date often beats gambling on the court's choice.
-
Address control-of-business concerns directly. If dividing shares would threaten control of a closely held company, explore offsets — buying out the other spouse's interest with cash or other assets rather than transferring voting shares.
If you own appreciating stock or a business and are facing divorce in California, the valuation date may matter more than any other single issue. A family law attorney experienced in high-asset and business-valuation disputes can help you build the record now that protects your position later.
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.