Why High-Stakes Mediation Fails (And How to Fix It)
Case Study · Dispute Resolution in the News
When Billions Are on the Table: What a Failed Seoul Mediation Teaches Us About High-Conflict Disputes
On June 15, court-ordered mediation between SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won and his former wife, Roh Soh-yeong, broke down without an agreement, sending Korea's largest-ever divorce case back to trial. Here's what happened, why even a carefully structured mediation can fail in the highest-stakes disputes, and what the rest of us can take from it.
A Closed-Door Session Ends, A Public Trial Resumes
On Monday, June 15, Chey Tae-won and Roh Soh-yeong sat across from one another inside the Seoul High Court's Family Division for the first time in more than two years. The two married in 1988 and share three children. In 2015, Chey publicly acknowledged that the couple had been living separately for years and that he had a child outside the marriage; he filed for divorce two years later. Even that first attempt at resolving things began in mediation, back in 2017 — and it failed too, pushing the case into nine years of litigation that has since worked its way through three levels of Korean courts.
Monday's session was convened specifically to settle what remains of the dispute before a new round of trial. It ended the same way the 2017 attempt did. Before the session, Chey reportedly told waiting press that he hoped the matter could finally "end quickly." It didn't. The Seoul High Court has now scheduled June 26 for oral arguments to resume.
The Single Question Holding Up a Trillion-Won Settlement
At the center of the case is one asset: Chey's 17.9 percent stake in SK Inc., the holding company atop SK Group, South Korea's second-largest conglomerate by revenue. Whether that stake counts as marital property — and if so, on what date it should be valued — swings the outcome by an enormous margin. SK Inc. shares traded around â‚©160,000 on April 16, 2024, the last day oral arguments were heard at the appellate level. By mid-June 2026, the same shares were trading above â‚©600,000 — more than triple, on the back of a broader rally in Korea's chip sector. The result is that an identical legal dispute is worth dramatically different amounts depending almost entirely on which calendar date a judge selects.
The numbers attached to this case have moved before. In December 2022, a lower court ordered Chey to pay about â‚©66.5 billion in property division and excluded the SK shares from the estate entirely, treating them as Chey's separate, inherited property. In May 2024, the Seoul High Court overturned that, valuing the couple's combined marital estate at roughly â‚©4 trillion, splitting it 65/35 in Chey's favor, and ordering a payment of â‚©1.38 trillion (then about $913 million) — crediting Roh's family connections and support with helping build SK's value. In October 2025, the Supreme Court let the divorce itself stand but struck down part of that math: it ruled that an alleged â‚©30 billion fund Roh's father, the late President Roh Tae-woo, reportedly directed toward Chey's father could not count toward Roh's contribution, because the money appeared to be proceeds of bribery. The case was sent back for the property division to be recalculated — the exact question June's mediation was meant to resolve.
| Live Issue | Chey's Position | Roh's Position |
|---|---|---|
| SK Inc. shares | Separate, inherited property — should be excluded from division entirely | Built up using marital-era effort and family support — should be treated as joint property |
| Valuation date | April 16, 2024 (last appellate hearing), roughly â‚©160,000 per share | Present-day price, above â‚©600,000 per share |
| Contribution share | Argues for a lower percentage — Roh's "support" is difficult to quantify financially | Argues for a higher percentage, building on the 35% framework set by the 2024 ruling |
The Korea Herald reported Chey's stake was worth roughly â‚©2.81 trillion as of mid-October 2025, based on that day's share price — and the price has climbed considerably further since.
Mediation works best when both sides can agree, even roughly, on what's actually being divided. Here, the value of the central asset moved by billions of won between the time the parties last stood before a judge and the time they sat down to mediate. That isn't a negotiating gap a single session — or, as it turns out, two — can close on its own.
Why Mediation Struggles With a Moving Target
A productive mediation usually depends on a workable range both sides can negotiate within. When the value of the asset in dispute keeps changing — and changes in a direction that benefits one side more the longer the case drags on — that range never stabilizes. Each party has a rational reason to anchor to the date and number most favorable to them, and neither has much incentive to compromise on a figure a future court ruling might simply overwrite.
There's also a deeper structural issue at play: some of what's being decided here isn't really a dispute over interests, the kind mediation is built to resolve, but a dispute over a legal rule — whether inherited shares in a family-controlled company count as marital property under Korean law. That's a precedent-setting question with implications well beyond this one couple, and it's the kind of question mediators generally can't simply split the difference on. Add to that nine years of public litigation, three separate court rulings that have each handed one side or the other a number to defend, and a level of media attention most disputes never see, and you have a case where the conditions for a successful mediation — a stable bargaining range, room to compromise, and a private space to do it in — were difficult to create from the start.
Nine Years, Two Failed Mediations: A Timeline
What This Means If You're Not a Billionaire
Most of the people who come through mediation aren't dividing a stake in a multibillion-dollar conglomerate. But the structural problems on display in this case — a moving valuation, positions that harden the longer a dispute sits in court, and an asset neither side can easily liquidate — show up, at a smaller scale, in a lot of the family and business disputes mediators see every day.
Fix your valuation method before you need it
Many family and business disputes founder on the exact question at the heart of this case: what is this asset worth, and as of what date? Parties who agree on a valuation date and methodology in advance — in a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, a partnership agreement, or an early mediated understanding — remove an entire category of future conflict.
Mediate before the record hardens
The first mediation attempt in this case happened in 2017, before any court had ruled on anything. By 2026, three separate rulings had each assigned a different number to the same dispute, giving both sides a result worth defending. Disputes generally get harder to mediate, not easier, the longer they sit in litigation.
Bring in a neutral valuation expert early
When an asset's worth is genuinely contested — a business, equity compensation, a professional practice, real estate in a moving market — a jointly selected, neutral appraiser can narrow the gap before mediation begins, rather than leaving each side to argue from its own number.
Consider structured outcomes, not just lump sums
High-value, low-liquidity disputes — a controlling stake in a company, a family business, a piece of real estate — often resolve more smoothly through deferred payments, installment buyouts, or staged transfers than through a single, court-ordered payment that forces a sale.
Privacy is a real asset
Court filings in this case are public record, picked up by global news outlets within hours of each hearing. Mediation is confidential by design — which matters for any family or business that would rather resolve a dispute than narrate it.
How We Approach Complex, High-Conflict Disputes
At DC Mediation & Dispute Resolution Institute, we work with individuals, families, and businesses facing disputes where money, valuation, and history are tangled together — divorce and family property division, business and partnership breakups, and other high-conflict civil matters. Our approach starts before the numbers do: helping both sides agree on a fair process, a shared set of facts, and a workable valuation approach, rather than letting a court ruling set the opening anchor for everyone involved.
Mediation won't resolve every dispute — some genuinely need a judge to decide a question of law, the way this one ultimately did. But many of the disputes that end up in years of litigation could have been resolved sooner, more privately, and at a fraction of the cost, with the right process in place from the start.
Facing a Complex or High-Conflict Dispute?
Whether you're navigating a divorce involving shared business interests, a partnership disagreement, or another high-stakes conflict, our team can help you find a process built for your situation.
Visit DC Mediation & Dispute Resolution Institute →
DC Mediation & Dispute Resolution Institute
This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create a mediator–client relationship. Details of the Chey–Roh case are drawn from public news reporting and court filings as of June 21, 2026, and may change as the litigation continues. If you are facing a legal dispute, consult a licensed attorney.
Reporting referenced from Bloomberg, UPI, Yonhap News Agency, The Korea Herald, The Korea Times, and The Investor, among other publicly available coverage of Seoul High Court proceedings.
© 2026 DC Mediation & Dispute Resolution Institute. All rights reserved. · dcmediationinstitute.com
