Chey Tae-won ordered to pay $645 million in landmark divorce settlement

In a landmark decision, Chey Tae-won, the chairman of SK Group, has been ordered by the court to pay his ex-wife Roh Soh-yeong a staggering $645 million as part of their divorce settlement. This ruling is considered one of the largest divorce settlements in South Korean history, underscoring the significant financial stakes involved. The court's decision was issued on July 24, 2026, concluding a divorce process that began over a decade ago.

The ruling has drawn widespread attention, not only for its size but also for the implications it carries regarding wealth and personal relationships. The case has been described as South Korea's "Divorce of the Century," reflecting the dramatic narrative that has captivated the nation.

The divorce settlement between Chey Tae-won and Roh Soh-yeong highlights critical societal issues surrounding wealth distribution and gender equity in divorce cases. As a prominent tech mogul, Chey Tae-won's financial holdings, particularly in SK Inc. shares, were central to the court's ruling. The case has sparked discussions about the complexities of high-net-worth divorces and the expectations placed on individuals in such situations.

This ruling comes at a time when South Korea is grappling with broader societal challenges, including the need for equitable treatment in divorce settlements. The outcome may set a precedent for how corporate assets are divided in future cases, potentially influencing public perception and legal standards in high-profile divorces.

As the implications of this landmark ruling unfold, it is essential to monitor potential appeals or further legal actions from either party. The public and media reactions to the ruling will also be significant, as they may shape the discourse surrounding wealth and gender equity in divorce settlements.

The outcome of this case could influence future divorce settlements involving high-net-worth individuals in South Korea, particularly those with substantial corporate assets. Observers will be keen to see how this ruling impacts similar cases and whether it leads to changes in legal practices regarding asset division.