Choi Tae-won's Side: "Legal Newspaper's Interview Report with Director No So-young is Illegal"... "Concerned About Impact on Trial"

"Judgment Based on Established Property Division Doctrine"
"Plan to Review the Necessity of Legal Action Regarding the Report"

Chairman Chey Tae-won of SK Group and Director Noh So-young of Art Center Nabi. / Photo by Yonhap News Agency. Provided by Director Noh's side.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The legal team representing SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won in his divorce and property division lawsuit expressed strong regret over an interview given by Noh So-young, director of Art Center Nabi, regarding the divorce ruling, and announced that they are considering legal action.

Under the Family Litigation Act, reporting on family court cases is prohibited, and violations can lead to criminal penalties. The legal team stated that publishing an article featuring only one party's claims during an ongoing trial constitutes unlawful reporting that could influence the trial.

Chairman Chey's Legal Team: "Unlawful Reporting Violating Family Litigation Act's Prohibition on Reporting"

On the 2nd, Attorney Cho Sook-hyun of Law Firm One, representing Chairman Chey in the divorce lawsuit, stated in a 'Legal Team's Position' released to the media, "We deeply regret the attitude of one party attempting to influence the trial through the media while the case is still ongoing."

He added, "The first-instance ruling did not establish any new or unusual standards regarding property division but followed the court's long-established criteria. The interview content was also claims continuously made throughout the years-long property division trial, which the first-instance court thoroughly reviewed and judged," emphasizing this point.

Attorney Cho pointed out, "Article 10 of the Family Litigation Act prohibits reporting on family cases, and violations are subject to criminal penalties. Despite this, the Legal Newspaper's report, which published only one party's claims during the ongoing trial, constitutes unlawful reporting that could influence the trial."

He further stated, "The plaintiff's legal team intends to proceed according to law and principles in future trials. Additionally, we will consider the necessity of legal measures regarding this report. It is very regrettable that an interview conducted with the intent to influence the trial was reported as is, despite the ruling being based on established property division principles."

Article 10 (Prohibition of Reporting) of the Family Litigation Act prohibits publishing or broadcasting facts or photos that could identify the parties involved in cases handled or being handled by the family court, including their names, ages, occupations, or appearances, in newspapers, magazines, or other publications.

Article 72 (Violation of Prohibition of Reporting) stipulates that anyone violating the prohibition under Article 10 shall be punished by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine of up to 1 million won.

Director Noh Reveals Reflections on the Ruling and Grounds for Appeal in Legal Newspaper Interview

Earlier, the Legal Newspaper published an exclusive interview article titled <(Exclusive) [Interview with Director Noh So-young] "Unexpected Result of First-Instance Ruling... Completely Denying Women's Meaning as Devoted to Family and Social Beings"> on the morning of the same day, based on an interview conducted with Director Noh on the 28th of last month.

The interview article included Director Noh's reflections on the court ruling, such as "It was an unexpected result," "I feel ashamed and humiliated by this ruling," and "Every time I hear from those around me that this ruling will become a representative precedent where many who have struggled to maintain their families are divorced by the at-fault spouse and fail to receive proper property division and alimony, I feel devastated."

The article also introduced the background of her appeal, where Director Noh said, "The first-instance trial was a complete loss for me. The court accepted Chairman Chey's position almost 100%." After effectively losing in the first trial, when she asked her daughter, "Mom is having a very hard time alone. Should I stop here?" her daughter replied, "I don't want my mom to be the mom who stops here," which helped her regain determination.

In the interview, Director Noh acknowledged that the 66.5 billion won property division amount in the first-instance ruling might seem substantial to many but explained, "This is not just about personal security. I have plans to give back to society through the cultural arts and technical education fields I have been involved in. Viewing property division merely as a concept of support denies the social significance of women as social beings," revealing the reasons for continuing the lawsuit and her future plans.

She added, "Out of nearly 5 trillion won of my husband's disclosed assets, the proportion I received is less than 1.2%. During our 34 years of marriage, I bore and raised three children and supported my husband inside and outside the home, but the value of my life seems completely disregarded."

Furthermore, Director Noh expressed strong dissatisfaction, stating, "According to the logic of the first-instance ruling, not only large corporation owners but also couples where the husband runs a business regardless of its scale, if the husband has had an affair, can almost evict the wife who has maintained the family and supported him inside and outside for decades without significant financial loss. It would be difficult for anyone, not just me, to accept the result of the first-instance ruling."

Legal Newspaper Explains Background of Reporting Decision Through Editor's Note... Public Interest and Social Issue-Related Ruling

Meanwhile, the Legal Newspaper, which published Director Noh's interview article, explained the background and reasons for deciding to report through an 'Editor's Note' at the beginning of the article.

After receiving Director Noh's willingness to be interviewed from a third party, the newspaper deliberated extensively on whether it was appropriate to report one party's claims as is in a private dispute case and whether the interview might influence the higher court's trial. However, considering that ▲ this case is in the realm of public interest, unlike ordinary property division cases, and ▲ the first-instance ruling deals with the social issue of 'indirect contribution through domestic labor and division of business assets,' the decision was made to proceed with the interview, according to the Legal Newspaper.

The Legal Newspaper also promised, "If the opposing party, Chairman Chey's side, requests, we will report their claims with equal weight."

Court Rules on 66.5 Billion Won Property Division and 10 Million Won Alimony... SK Inc. Shares Deemed Chairman Chey's Separate Property

Previously, on December 6 last year, the Seoul Family Court Family Agreement Division 2 (Presiding Judge Kim Hyun-jung) held the first-instance hearing for the divorce lawsuit between Chairman Chey and Director Noh and ruled on their divorce. The court also ordered Chairman Chey to divide 66.5 billion won in property to Director Noh and pay 10 million won in alimony.

The court's order stated, "By counterclaim, the plaintiff (Chey Tae-won) and the defendant (Noh So-young) are divorced."

The court further ruled that Chairman Chey must pay Director Noh 10 million won in alimony and delayed damages at an annual interest rate of 5% from December 2019 until the first-instance ruling date, and a higher interest rate thereafter until full payment. December 2019 was when Director Noh filed a counterclaim against Chairman Chey's divorce lawsuit.

Director Noh claimed property division rights over Chairman Chey's SK Inc. shares, affiliate stocks, real estate, and retirement benefits.

In particular, Director Noh requested half of the 12,975,472 SK Inc. shares held by Chairman Chey, amounting to 6,487,736 shares. Since the couple had been married for a long time, assets received as gifts or inheritance by a spouse should be considered joint property. Director Noh argued that since Chairman Chey became the largest shareholder of SK Inc. through a merger with SK C&C (formerly Korea Telecom) after marriage, these shares should be regarded as marital property.

On the other hand, Chairman Chey's side argued that these shares originated from SK affiliate shares gifted or inherited from his late father, former Chairman Chey Jong-hyun, and should be considered separate property.

Separate property refers to assets owned by one spouse before marriage or acquired in their name during marriage and is generally excluded from property division.

The court ruled that it was difficult to see Director Noh as having substantially contributed to the formation, maintenance, or value increase of the SK Inc. shares held by Chairman Chey, and thus these shares should be considered separate property and excluded from property division.

Regarding this first-instance ruling, Director Noh's side filed an appeal first, and Chairman Chey's side also filed a counter-appeal in response.

With the upcoming appeal trial and the media attention following Director Noh's interview, public interest in the appeal proceedings and outcome is expected to increase.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.