Choi Tae-won's Side: "Court Shopping Was Initiated by Noh So-young"... "We Want a Swift Conclusion"

Choi Tae-won, chairman of SK Group (64), recently appointed two new lawyers from Kim & Chang. In response, No So-young, director of Art Center Nabi (63), criticized on the 10th, calling it a "trick to reassign the presiding judge." Choi's side rebutted, saying, "Judge shopping was done by Director No," and called it a "brazen accusation."

Choi's legal representative issued a statement that day, saying, "The plaintiff (Choi Tae-won) wishes for this lawsuit to be resolved as quickly as possible," and made the above remarks.

Chairman Chey Tae-won of SK Group. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

Choi's side explained, "The reason the plaintiff newly appointed Kim & Chang this time is because the defendant (No So-young) expanded the claims for property division and consolation money, and additionally asserted issues related to a damages lawsuit against Kim Hee-young, chairperson of the T&C Foundation, in this main lawsuit. Since the defendant appointed lawyer Lee Sang-won, who represents Kim Hee-young, to this case, we responded by strengthening our right to defense and additionally appointed the Kim & Chang lawyers who had been representing Kim Hee-young's damages lawsuit and advising on this case to the main lawsuit."

Choi's side asserted, "Above all, judge shopping was done by the defendant. When this case was initially assigned to the Family Division 3-1 of the Seoul High Court in the appeal trial, the defendant appointed Law Firm Class, whose representative lawyer is the brother-in-law of the presiding judge, as their legal representative to seek a change of the presiding judge. As intended by the defendant, the case was changed to the current Family Division 2 of the Seoul High Court, and the said lawyer left the law firm immediately after the judge reassignment."

They added, "The defendant's recent claims are nothing more than brazen accusations based on their own past actions."

Furthermore, Choi's side stated, "Today, the defendant is showing an extreme attitude by pressuring the court through the media and trying to manipulate the judge assignment according to their own intentions once again. We believe that strict measures at the judicial level are necessary."

They continued, "The plaintiff hopes for a swift trial and will abide by any decisions or measures taken by the court."

No So-young's side, known to have significantly increased the property division claim to around 2 trillion won in the second trial, stated in a press release that "Choi's side appointed lawyers Yoo Hae-yong and Noh Jae-ho from Kim & Chang, who have familial ties with the presiding judge, on the 9th, two days before the trial date. This is a trick by the plaintiff to change the presiding judge as the case approaches its final stages and the truth of the case is about to be revealed, anticipating an unfavorable verdict."

No's side also said, "Even though Kim & Chang, with familial ties, was appointed, we submitted a procedural opinion to the court requesting a swift trial without reassignment, accepting this fact."

In the 'Procedural Opinion' submitted to the Seoul High Court Family Division 2 (Presiding Judges Kim Si-cheol, Kang Sang-wook, Lee Dong-hyun), No's side appealed to the court, stating, "As the head of a large corporation that claims to be a social enterprise with immense influence over the nation and society, this is nothing but a serious challenge to social order and the judiciary. If the case is reassigned simply because the plaintiff appointed Kim & Chang as legal representatives, it would be a serious challenge to judicial fairness and would allow judge shopping and manipulation of the trial based on overwhelming power and economic strength. We strongly urge the court to firmly reject such attempts by the plaintiff."

Meanwhile, the first hearing of the appeal trial, scheduled for the 11th, was postponed, and a new date will be set later.

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