Choi Tae-won Argues “Property Acquired After Marriage Cannot be Divided” Based on Legal Grounds,
Choi Tae-won, SK Group Chairman (left picture), and No So-young, director of Nabi Art Center. Yonhap News,
, ‘SK Group Chairman Choi Tae-won reportedly argued to the Supreme Court based on the provisions of civil law that property such as SK shares under his name is not subject to be divided with Nabi Art Center director No So-young. No’s side countered that if this argument is accepted, it could open the way for the guilty spouse to drive out the innocent spouse almost naked by changing the precedent of property division in divorce cases.’,
,
, ‘According to legal circles on the 16th, in the 500-page appeal brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Chairman Choi invoked Articles 830 and 831 of civil law as a premise that the appellate court decision in May to divide a total of 1.38 trillion won of his property out of his total property of 3.9883 trillion won was unjust.’,
,
, ‘These articles stipulate that property acquired under one’s name during marriage is considered as ‘unique property,’ and the couple each manages, uses, and benefits from it. This is a declaration of adopting the principle of separate property of husband and wife.’,
,
, ‘Chairman Choi reportedly argued that under this provision, property acquired under one’s name during marriage is presumed to be the unique property of the owner, and that presumption is not reversed by the fact that the acquisition involved the cooperation or support of the spouse.’,
,
, ‘He also rebutted that if the principle of separate property of husband and wife is practically operated by broadly acknowledging the contribution of the spouse based simply on the fact that they lived together for a long time and adjusting the division ratio to treat one party’s unique property as common property, then the principle will be distorted.’,
,
, ‘In a previous divorce suit appellate court ruling, it was pointed out that 300 billion won suspected to be non-registered funds of No So-young’s father No Tae-woo former president flowed to Choi Chairman’s father Choi Jong-hyun former chairman and became the seed money for the growth of SK Group.’,
,
, ‘However, Chairman Choi’s side insists that this appellate court judgment is incorrect and should be corrected in the Supreme Court. The group’s seed money, being unrelated to former President No, is presented as Chairman Choi’s unique property rather than common property of the couple. It is also noted that recent media reports include testimony that the funds were given by Chairman Choi’s father Choi Jong-hyun to former President No as post-retirement operating funds.’,
,
,
,
, ‘On the other hand, No’s side countered through an opinion statement that there is no problem with the appellate court judgment, citing the precedent of dividing property based on actual contributions despite the presumption that property acquired during marriage is joint property of the couple.’,
,
, ‘It is pointed out that in most cases, assets acquired during marriage are mostly registered under the husband’s name, and in order to improve the issue that it is difficult for the wife to prove in divorce proceedings, the property division system was introduced in 1990 and established in Supreme Court precedents.’,
,
, ‘No’s side criticized, “Chairman Choi is not only disregarding the purpose of the property division system and established attitudes of our laws and precedents but also forcing through unreasonable claims that he should be excluded from the property division as inalienable property.”‘,
,
, ‘Regarding the civil law provisions presented by Chairman Choi’s side, No’s side countered, “These are provisions related to unique property and property of unknown attribution, not regulations regarding property division.”‘,
,
, ‘In particular, No’s side argued that if Chairman Choi’s argument is accepted, it could negatively impact future divorce suits of ordinary citizens.’,
,
, ‘No’s side stated, “Even now, people who operate businesses or have a lot of assets claim unique property like ‘a castle transfer’ regardless of the method of acquisition or formation of assets,” and added, “This could ultimately lead to a guilty spouse who destroyed the family driving out the innocent spouse almost naked and causing pain to the children.”‘,
,
, ‘No’s side also stated that since Chairman Choi’s argument disputes the ‘factual recognition,’ which is the prerogative of the lower court, it is not an issue to be examined at the appellate court, which is a court of legal review from the beginning.’