[비즈한국] This Thursday (the 16th), the Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on the divorce case between SK034730 Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and Art Center Nabi Director Roh Soh-yeong, a case widely referred to as the "divorce of the century." While there was speculation that the Supreme Court might refer the case to an en banc collegiate body rather than the petty bench (the 1st Division) to which it was assigned, the judgment of the four Supreme Court justices has been consolidated, and the ruling is scheduled for the 16th.
Controversy Over Slush Funds and Ruling Corrections
The core issue of this litigation is whether the property division amount, which totals 1.38 trillion won, will be altered. Last May, the Seoul High Court ruled, "Chairman Chey shall pay Director Roh 2 billion won in alimony and 1.3808 trillion won in property division." While this is not the "50% of property" demanded by Director Roh, it acknowledges approximately 30%. This is 20 times the amount of the 66.5 billion won division awarded in the first trial.
The background of this judgment involved the slush funds of former President Roh Tae-woo. During the second trial, Director Roh introduced the "slush fund" claim, submitting a memo from her mother, Kim Ok-sook, and an envelope labeled "Sunkyung" to the court.
Based on this, the second trial court determined that 30 billion won, presumed to be former President Roh’s slush fund, was transferred to the late SK Group Chairman Chey Jong-hyun, and that this amount, along with the late chairman's existing assets, became the seed money for what was then Sunkyung Group. The court recognized the former president's slush fund as a "contribution" by Director Roh and further viewed that the Roh Tae-woo administration acted as a political shield for SK Group (then Sunkyung Group).
Controversy also arose due to a mistake by the court. The Seoul High Court incorrectly calculated the value of Daehan Telecom, the parent company of SK, at 100 won per share, then corrected it to 1,000 won in the written judgment. However, it did not change the total amount for property division in this process.
A Ruling on Even One Error Could Lead to a Remand
Because of this, speculation about a "remand" (sending the case back to the lower court) has been circulating in and around the legal community for some time. In particular, observers suggest that the correction of the ruling will be a much larger issue than anticipated. Although the court explained it as a "simple mistake," some legal experts argue that "if it is deemed a calculation error, a remand is entirely possible without needing to judge other issues."
An attorney who previously served as a High Court presiding judge explained, "There are various issues, but from the moment the correction of the judgment was first reported, Supreme Court justices were already pointing out that 'because it is linked to a calculation problem, it is problematic to dismiss it as a simple typo.' He added, "While they could decide to remand based on property distribution or other issues, a remand seems inevitable even just based on the correction of the ruling itself."
The controversy surrounding the slush funds of former President Roh has also grown socially and politically, raising the possibility that the ruling could be overturned. Even if the delivery of the slush funds were acknowledged, it has not been verified how that money was used. Controversy continues over whether "funds of an illegal nature," currently under investigation by the prosecution, can be legally recognized as a contribution.
A managing partner at a major law firm well-versed in this case predicted, "The point to watch in this ruling is whether the Supreme Court will provide specific guidelines on whether to recognize the slush fund, the delivery process, and the contribution, and if recognized, what weight to assign to them." He added, "If the court remands the case solely due to the correction of the judgment, it will be inevitable to revisit the ratio of property contribution during the remand trial (second trial) and the subsequent appeal, which would inevitably prolong the litigation."