These file photos show Chey Tae-won (L), chairman of SK Group, and his wife, Roh So-young. (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
SEOUL, Oct. 16 (Korea Bizwire) — SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won has argued to the Supreme Court that SK Inc. stocks and other assets under his name cannot be subject to property division with his estranged wife, Roh Soh-yeong, based on the Civil Act, judicial officials said Wednesday.
Chey’s argument was recently submitted in written form to the top court, which has been hearing his divorce case after the Seoul High Court ordered the SK chair in May this year to pay 1.38 trillion won (US$1 billion) in property division and a solatium of 2 billion won to Roh in the country’s most expensive divorce suit in history.
In the document, Chey insisted that the Seoul High Court’s decision to view his aggregate assets worth 3.98 trillion won as a subject of property division was unfair in consideration of Article 830 and Article 831 of the Civil Act, which call on husband or wife to separately manage and use their peculiar property.
Article 830 defines the peculiar property as inherent property belonging to either husband or wife from the time before the marriage and property acquired during the marriage in his or her own name.
Citing the clauses, Chey said any property acquired in his name during the marriage is presumed to be his peculiar property, regardless of Roh’s cooperation or assistance in the property acquisition.
The Seoul High Court did not regard Chey’s assets, including SK Inc. stocks, as his peculiar property, after recognizing that a purported slush fund of about 30 billion won that was transferred from Roh’s father and former President Roh Tae-woo to the SK chair’s father Chey Jong-hyun decades ago was used for the seed money for the conglomerate’s growth.
Chey insisted that the appellate court’s judgment on his peculiar property was wrong and must be corrected by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand, Roh’s side has reportedly refuted Chey’s argument, saying that there was no problem with the appellate court’s decision in that the SK chair’s property will be divided based on the premise that the property acquired during their marriage is presumed to be in their co-ownership.
(Yonhap)
