South Korean billionaire Chey Tae-won and ex-wife Roh Soh-yeong are re-litigating South Korea's largest-ever divorce after the country's Supreme Court overturned a record 1.38 trillion won ($1 billion) property division on June 25, 2026, and ordered a retrial. For California residents, the case is a masterclass in how appreciating business stock and corporate control collide with property-division law — issues California Family Code § 760 resolves very differently than Korean courts.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | South Korea's Supreme Court overturned a record 1.38 trillion won (~$1 billion) divorce settlement and ordered a retrial, which resumed at Seoul High Court |
| When | Supreme Court ruling and retrial reporting dated June 25, 2026 |
| Where | Seoul High Court, South Korea |
| Who's affected | SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and ex-wife Roh Soh-yeong, daughter of a former South Korean president |
| Central issue | Whether appreciating SK Hynix shares are divisible marital property and whether the split threatens Chey's corporate control |
| California parallel | Cal. Fam. Code § 760 (community property) and § 2552 (asset valuation date) |
The dispute, reported by Bloomberg, centers on a surge in SK Hynix shares. Because the value of Chey's stake has climbed since the original judgment, the retrial must grapple with a question every high-net-worth divorce faces: when do you value a rapidly appreciating asset, and how do you divide it without forcing a sale that destroys the underlying business?
Why This Matters Legally
This case demonstrates a universal principle: business-ownership stakes are the single most contested asset class in high-net-worth divorce, and the valuation date can swing the outcome by hundreds of millions of dollars. In the Chey matter, SK Hynix's share appreciation is not a footnote — it is the entire fight, because the difference between valuing the stock at separation versus at trial can shift the award dramatically.
South Korea and the United States handle marital property under fundamentally different frameworks. Korea uses an equitable-contribution model where courts assess each spouse's contribution to asset accumulation. California, by contrast, uses a community-property system that presumes a 50/50 split of everything acquired during marriage. This distinction matters because in California, the appreciation of a business interest during marriage is frequently community property regardless of whose name is on the stock certificate.
The corporate-control angle is equally important. When a divorce threatens a controlling stake in a public company, courts must balance one spouse's right to an equal share against the economic reality that liquidating shares can trigger a loss of control, tank the stock, or destabilize a company employing thousands. California judges routinely resolve this through offsetting awards rather than forced share transfers.
How California Law Handles This
In California, everything either spouse earns or acquires during marriage is community property divided equally at divorce under California Family Code § 760. This includes business interests, stock, and — critically — the appreciation in value of those interests attributable to the marital period. A billion-dollar corporate stake acquired or grown during marriage would presumptively be split 50/50, not apportioned by contribution as in Korea.
The valuation timing question at the heart of the Chey retrial is governed by California Family Code § 2552. California generally values community assets as near as practicable to the time of trial, not the date of separation. For an appreciating asset like semiconductor stock, this is decisive: a spouse who separated before a share surge still shares in the run-up if the asset is valued at trial. Section 2552(b) allows a party to request an alternate valuation date for good cause, which is exactly the kind of dispute driving the Korean retrial.
Characterizing a business owned before marriage but grown during it invokes California's apportionment doctrines. Under Pereira and Van Camp — the two competing California formulas — courts separate the pre-marital (separate property) value from the marital appreciation (community property). If Chey's stake were analyzed in California, a court would ask how much of the appreciation flowed from his personal labor during marriage (community) versus the passive market rise of a separate-property asset.
California also protects business continuity. Rather than order a controlling shareholder to hand over shares, courts frequently award the business to the operating spouse and offset the other spouse's community share with cash, other assets, or a structured buyout. This preserves corporate control while honoring the equal-division mandate — the same tension SK Group is now navigating in Seoul.
Financial disclosure obligations are strict. Under California Family Code § 2104, both spouses must exchange preliminary declarations of disclosure identifying all assets and liabilities. Concealing a business interest or understating its value can void a judgment years later, a risk that grows with the size of the estate.
Practical Takeaways
-
Nail down your valuation date early. Because Cal. Fam. Code § 2552 presumes a trial-date valuation, the timing of your divorce relative to a stock surge, business sale, or company milestone can shift your share by six or seven figures. Discuss alternate valuation dates with counsel before filing.
-
Get a qualified business valuation, not a guess. High-net-worth divorces involving private or public company stakes require a forensic accountant or valuation expert. Under-documenting an asset's value is the leading cause of reopened judgments.
-
Distinguish separate-property appreciation from community growth. If you owned a business before marriage, California's Pereira and Van Camp doctrines determine how much of the growth your spouse can claim. The formula that applies can change the outcome by millions.
-
Complete disclosure fully and honestly. California Family Code § 2104 mandates full asset disclosure. In large estates, courts and opposing counsel scrutinize every filing — omissions can unravel a settlement long after it is signed.
-
Consider a buyout structure to protect a business. If your goal is retaining control of a company, ask whether an offsetting cash or asset award can satisfy your spouse's community share without forcing a sale of operating shares.
If you own a business, stock, or any appreciating asset and are contemplating divorce in California, the valuation and characterization decisions you make early can define your financial future. A consultation with an experienced California family law attorney can help you understand how community property, apportionment, and disclosure rules apply to your specific holdings.
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.