Nosoyoung Raises Property Division Claim to 2 Trillion... "KIM & Chang Appointment by Chey Tae-won Side Is a Trick"

New Kim & Chang Lawyer Appointed with Family Ties to the Court
"Court Shopping and Trial Manipulation Using Overwhelming Power and Economic Strength"
"Willing to Endure Disadvantages from Connections to Proceed with the Process," Statement Submitted

In the second trial, it is known that No So-young, director of Art Center Nabi (63), who significantly increased the property division claim amount to the 2 trillion won level, strongly opposed the attempt by SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won (64) to change the presiding judge by appointing a lawyer from Kim & Chang who has a familial relationship with the court.

No's side submitted a procedural opinion letter to the court requesting the trial to proceed as is, stating that even if Chey’s side appoints a lawyer from Kim & Chang who has a familial relationship with the court, the disadvantages caused by the connection are outweighed by the greater harm caused by Chey’s side’s illegal behavior and tricks leading to trial delays.

No So-young, Director of Art Center Nabi (left), and Chey Tae-won, Chairman of SK Group.

On the 10th, No’s side announced this through a statement titled "Position of No So-young’s Legal Team on Chey Tae-won’s Attempt to Reassign the Appellate Court."

No’s side said, "Chey Tae-won’s side suddenly appointed Kim & Chang, where a lawyer related to the appellate court by kinship works, just two days before the hearing date, attempting to reassign the court," adding, "The appellate trial has already been underway for a year, with a total of 46 written submissions from both sides, several requests for clarification from the court, and hundreds of evidence submissions. Based on the trial progress so far, No has expanded the claim amount to 2.03 trillion won, and the trial process is nearing completion."

No’s side criticized, "Mobilizing Kim & Chang, which has over 1,000 lawyers, is a collusion backed by the financial power of a conglomerate, and as the head of SK Group, the second largest business group, this is a serious challenge to law and social order that should not be made."

They continued, "No So-young’s side has submitted a procedural opinion letter to the court requesting the trial to proceed swiftly without reassignment, even if Kim & Chang, which has a familial relationship with the court, is appointed," and added, "No So-young trusts that the court will conduct a fair trial and awaits the wise judgment of the court and the presiding judges."

On the same day, No’s side also disclosed the "Procedural Opinion Letter" submitted to the Seoul High Court’s 2nd Family Division (Presiding Judges Kim Si-cheol, Kang Sang-wook, Lee Dong-hyun), which is currently hearing the case.

In the opinion letter, No’s side stated, "The plaintiff (Chey Tae-won) suddenly submitted a power of attorney appointing lawyers Yoo Hae-yong and Noh Jae-ho from Kim & Chang as legal representatives just two days before the hearing date on the 9th," and added, "It appears that your court issued an order to change the hearing date on the 10th accordingly."

No’s side argued, "However, the plaintiff’s above power of attorney is clearly a trick to change the court, anticipating an unfavorable verdict as the truth of the case is about to be revealed at the final stage of the trial," and emphasized, "Therefore, the case must never be reassigned due to this reason."

No’s side stated, "This is nothing but a serious challenge to social order and the judiciary by the head of a large corporation that claims to be a social enterprise and holds enormous influence over the state and society," and appealed, "If the case is reassigned simply because the plaintiff appointed Kim & Chang as legal representatives, it would be a serious challenge to the fairness of the trial and would allow court shopping and manipulation of the trial based on overwhelming power and economic strength. We strongly urge you to firmly reject such attempts by the plaintiff."

Regarding the "Supreme Court Public Officials Ethics Committee Recommendation No. 8," No’s side said, "According to Recommendation No. 8, concerns about the fairness of the trial may arise when a law firm where a judge’s relative works as a lawyer is appointed as counsel or legal representative in a case handled by that judge. However, it also points out that it is not appropriate to automatically exclude the judge from the case solely because the law firm is handling it," and argued, "The Supreme Court Public Officials Ethics Committee’s recommendation, like the Judicial Ethics Code, is declarative and advisory in nature, and it is the judge’s responsibility to apply the code to specific cases and practice it."

Furthermore, No’s side added, "While it is desirable that a judge does not handle cases taken by a law firm where a third or fourth cousin relative works as a lawyer, if such a relative is not the responsible lawyer but merely an employed lawyer (affiliated lawyer), the judge may handle the case if there are no concerns about fairness after comprehensively considering the closeness between the judge and the relative lawyer, the nature of the case, the possibility of economic benefit to the relative lawyer depending on the outcome, the relative’s actual involvement, and their position in the law firm."

No’s side pointed out, "Kim & Chang is not a law firm but a collective of individual lawyers who are not part of a single corporation and perform their work independently," and added, "If even one lawyer from the giant law firm Kim & Chang, which has over 1,000 lawyers, is appointed, it would lead to an unfair result where the presiding judge can be changed at will in almost all trials."

Meanwhile, it is known that No increased the property division amount from the 1 trillion won level to the 2 trillion won level in the second trial. The form of the property to be divided was also changed from shares held by Chey to cash, and the amount of alimony claimed was increased.

The court issued an order on the 8th to raise the stamp duty to about 4.7 billion won. The stamp duty in the first trial was about 3.4 billion won.

This was the result of No’s submission of a request to increase the appeal claim on the 5th.

By reverse-calculating the revised stamp duty based on the Civil Procedure Stamp Act and Family Litigation Fee Rules, No’s total claim amount is calculated to be 2.03 trillion won.

Considering that No filed a 3 billion won alimony lawsuit last March against Kim Hee-young, chairman of the T&C Foundation and Chey’s cohabitant, the revised claim is analyzed as 2 trillion won in cash for property division and 3 billion won in alimony.

After No changed the appeal claim, Chey’s side also responded by appointing additional representatives.

Chey, who appointed seven lawyers, newly appointed Yoo Hae-yong from Kim & Chang, the same firm as Noh Jae-ho who is handling the alimony lawsuit against Chairman Kim Hee-young, the day before.

The appellate court, which started in January last year and completed trial preparation procedures, originally planned to hold the first formal trial on the 11th but postponed it and decided to reschedule.

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