Invest1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
Chey Tae-won's second appeal was not triggered by the size of the award but by the medium of payment. Cash or SK stock is now a governance question for SK holders.
The Investor · Invest desk

Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
The dispute between SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and Roh Soh-yeong is no longer about the size of the award; both sides have had the number since last month. What broke the settlement was the medium of payment, which turns a family matter into a share-register question for anyone holding SK.
Chey, 65, has filed a second appeal to the Supreme Court against the remanded appellate ruling ordering him to pay 944 billion won ($687 million) in asset division to Roh, 65, director of the Art Center Nabi, closing a nine-year case that is not closed [1][2][3]. According to the legal community as reported by Seoul Economic Daily, the appeal came out of a tug-of-war over method: Chey's side proposed a mix of cash and SK shares, and Roh's side demanded the full amount in cash, as the ruling states [4]. Sources cited in the same report say Chey's side had initially considered accepting the ruling handed down on the 24th of last month and ending the litigation [5]. The obstacle was raising 944 billion won in cash in roughly three weeks, before the second appeal deadline on the 14th [6].
That is the governance point, stated plainly. Offloading a large volume of SK shares fast was seen as risking a drop in the share price and instability in the group's control structure [7]. So Chey offered to pay in stock, cover any shortfall if the price fell, and claim nothing back if it rose, which is a put written in Roh's favour [8]. Roh's side held to cash [4].
The arithmetic has moved against the stock option. The remanded appellate court used April 16, 2024, the close of appellate arguments, as the valuation reference date [13], then set the split at 33.3% to Roh and 66.6% to Chey after factoring in a more than fivefold rise from 160,000 won to 858,000 won, on a finding that Roh had contributed in part to the group's corporate value [14][15][16]. Shares have since fallen more than 30%, to around 500,000 won [18]. At 858,000 won, 944 billion won is about 1.1 million shares; at 500,000 won it is about 1.89 million, roughly 72% more paper to place [19].
Delay is priced. Once the ruling is finalised, 5% annual late-payment interest begins the next day at about 130 million won a day [9], on the order of 47 billion won a year [20]. Contesting the full sum runs to tens of billions of won in filing fees alone, per the legal community [11]. Chey's team disclosed the appeal at 11:59 p.m. on the 14th, one minute inside the deadline [10].
Watch whether the Supreme Court takes the substantive question rather than the timing. Chey is expected to argue that reflecting post-reference-date price movements in the division ratio is logically contradictory, and to point at the recent 30%-plus decline [17][18]; the stated key issues are the division-ratio principles and the valuation reference date [12]. A remand reopens the number. A dismissal restarts the interest meter at 130 million won a day and leaves Chey funding cash [9]. For SK minorities the exposure is the same either way: whether close to 1.9 million shares eventually have to find a buyer, and on whose schedule [19].
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Once the ruling is finalized, 5% annual late-payment interest begins the following day, amounting to a burden of about 130 million won a day; delaying finalization through the second appeal bought Chey time.
The asset-division award in the case is 944 billion won ($687 million), the subject of a nine-year legal battle.
SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won, 65, filed a second appeal to the Supreme Court against the remanded appellate ruling ordering him to pay 944 billion won in asset division.
The recipient of the ordered payment is Roh Soh-yeong, 65, director of the Art Center Nabi.
The problem arose in the process of raising 944 billion won in cash within about three weeks, by the second appeal deadline on the 14th.
Chey's legal team disclosed the second appeal at 11:59 p.m. on the 14th, one minute before the deadline.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Single-outlet reporting with verifiable court figures but anonymous sourcing on the decisive facts
Court-record-style figures (award size, division ratio, valuation reference date, share prices) are reported specifically and are internally consistent, but every load-bearing claim about why the appeal was filed rests on unnamed 'legal community' and 'sources' in one publisher, with no filing text, no company statement, and no comment from Roh's side.
No adoption signal applicable
This is a litigation and corporate-finance story; the supplied source reports no release, deployment, usage disclosure, or comparable adoption event, and none should be inferred.
Story framing runs modestly ahead of what the single source quantifies
The source does report governance and price concerns tied to a possible large share sale, but it supplies no stake, pledge, or float figures, so the cluster's 'share overhang' framing is more definite than the underlying evidence. Directionally, the reported price decline and the resulting need for roughly 72% more shares support the concern, which keeps the gap small rather than large.
Strongly interested parties shape an anonymously sourced account
The reported facts sit on top of clear incentives: Chey's side gains time and defers roughly 130 million won a day in interest by appealing, and the negotiation narrative that casts the appeal as a payment-medium problem rather than a challenge to the award is sourced anonymously in a way that favors that side. Roh's side has an equally direct financial stake in insisting on cash.
Moderate-low: consistent numbers, one publisher, unresolved motive claims
Confidence is limited by the single-source cluster and by the number of claims marked insufficient (negotiation history, motive, forecasts of appeal arguments). It is lifted somewhat by the specificity and internal arithmetic consistency of the award, interest, ratio, and share-price figures.
invest
The cheap-token trade is closing: DeepSeek's 12x price rise resets everyone's AI cost model1 distinct publisher
invest
SK's chairman warns of worst-ever memory imbalance while a U.S. fab stays under review1 distinct publisher
invest
Four sessions, 8.07 trillion won: the KOSPI is now a foreign positioning trade1 distinct publisher
invest
Samsung's breakaway union wants 1,000 treasury shares a head, three months after signing1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
en.sedaily.com
1 article · August 16, 2026