최태원, 노소영에 9440억원 지급 판결...SK주식 분할대상 포함 / 연합뉴스TV (YonhapnewsTV)

[Anchor] A court ruling has been issued ordering SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won to pay nearly 1 trillion won in property division to Noh So-young, Director of Art Center Nabi. We will take a closer look at this with the two reporters currently at the courthouse. Reporters Bang Jun-hyeok and Ahn Chae-won, please join us. [Reporter Bang Jun-hyeok] Yes, the verdict was announced just a short while ago, around 2 p.m. The property division amount is 944 billion won. Compared to the 1.3808 trillion won awarded in the appellate trial, this figure has been reduced to about 70%. However, it significantly exceeds the 66.5 billion won awarded in the first trial. SK shares were included in the property division; please go over that part in detail first. [Reporter Ahn Chae-won] Yes, in conclusion, the court in the remand trial recognized the SK shares held by Chairman Chey, which had been a subject of controversy, as subject to property division. It was revealed that the property division ratio was calculated with Director Noh's share at one-third of the total and Chairman Choi's share at two-thirds. However, in accordance with the intent of the Supreme Court ruling, the 30 billion won in slush funds held by former President Roh Tae-woo was not reflected. Previously, the Supreme Court ruled that the 30 billion won in funds injected into SK by Director Noh's father, former President Roh, which the second trial had considered for property division, constituted a "bribe" and was therefore outside the realm of legal protection. The reasoning was that since these were illegal funds from the start, there was no reason to base property division on them. Specifically, the court stated, "In accordance with the Supreme Court's remand ruling, the 30 billion won in support funds from Roh Tae-woo was not taken into account Director Noh's contribution to the formation or maintenance of the value of Chairman Choi's shares, nor was it considered in the calculation of the property division ratio." Furthermore, the court excluded from the assets subject to division the shares that Chairman Choi had gifted prior to the breakdown of the marriage as part of his management activities and to maintain control of the company. The court accepted Director Noh's arguments to a significant extent. The court emphasized that Chairman Choi’s stock holdings are assets acquired during the marriage, and that Ms. Noh also contributed to their formation, maintenance of value, and increase. In particular, the court noted that the value of the stocks increased significantly due to Chairman Choi’s management activities during the marriage, pointing out that Ms. Noh’s domestic and child-rearing activities, as well as her external activities regarding the SK Group, contributed substantially to this. As a result, although the amount recognized is lower than the 1.3808 trillion won awarded in the second trial, it is significantly higher than the 66.5 billion won awarded in the first trial. Reporter Bang, the reference date for the division of assets was also a key point of contention, but it seems the court did not accept Ms. Noh’s argument on this matter? [Reporter Bang Jun-hyeok] Yes, that was the point that garnered the most attention. The court calculated the stock value based on April 16, 2024, the date of the closing arguments in the appellate trial prior to remand, rather than the recent point in time when SK’s stock price rose more than fivefold. ** This decision follows the principle established by Supreme Court precedents that even when a judicial divorce is finalized first and a separate claim for property division is filed, the assets subject to division and their value must be based on the date of the conclusion of the trial in the divorce proceedings. While it was stated that there may be room for exceptional consideration if attributing profits or losses resulting from external or subsequent circumstances occurring after the divorce is finalized to only one party would significantly contradict the purpose of the property division system, the court determined that there were no such special circumstances in this case. The court also determined that Chairman Choi’s managerial contributions were not unrelated to the rise in stock prices. Furthermore, it explained that since stocks are inherently highly volatile assets and listed stocks can be converted into cash at any time, there is insufficient basis for both parties to share the burden of stock price fluctuations occurring after the divorce is finalized. However, the court did not completely disregard this factor; the fact that the stock price surged significantly after the appellate trial was reflected as a consideration when determining the "property division ratio." Ultimately, this is interpreted as a measure to achieve equity by fixing the reference point to a time when stock prices were low, while conversely increasing Director Noh’s share. Reporter Ahn, Chairman...