In the stock trading case involving Koo Yeon-kyung, the eldest daughter of the LG family and head of the LG Welfare Foundation, the court ruled that suspicious circumstances alone are insufficient for a guilty verdict. The ongoing family inheritance and disinheritance lawsuit hinges on the relationship between claims and evidence. Key issues include whether misleading explanations led to property division agreements in the inheritance case and whether there are legal grounds for terminating the mother-child relationship in the disinheritance case.
On November 11, the Seoul High Court's Criminal Division 4-3 (Judges Jeon Ji-won, Kim In-gyeom, and Seong Ji-yong) dismissed the prosecution's appeal against Koo and her husband Yoon Kwan, head of BlueRun Ventures (BRV), upholding the first trial's not guilty verdict. The couple was charged with acquiring stocks using undisclosed information related to BRV's investment in Mezzion.
The crux of this criminal case was whether the transmission and use of insider information could be proven. The court noted that despite suspicious circumstances surrounding the timing of purchases, it could not rule out the possibility that Koo obtained information through other channels. The couple invested only a portion of their significant financial resources and disclosed their stock purchases to nearby employees, which were also considered in the ruling.
The prosecution's claim that Koo purchased stocks based on undisclosed information received from her husband was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether this case will proceed to the Supreme Court depends on the prosecutor's decision to appeal.
The civil case regarding the inheritance lawsuit seeks to redistribute the estate of the late Koo Bon-moo, the former chairman of LG. The Seoul High Court's Civil Division 8-3 (Judges Lim Jong-hyo, Choi Eun-jung, and Oh Yang-seong) has scheduled the second preparatory hearing for the inheritance recovery claim filed by Kim Young-sik and her two daughters, Koo Yeon-kyung and Koo Yeon-soo, against Koo Kwang-mo for November 27 at 4 PM.
The three women believe there is a will that requires them to transfer management rights to Koo Kwang-mo, but they argue that no legally valid will exists. The first trial found that they had received reports from the financial management team and expressed their intentions regarding individual assets, and that the terms of their agreement changed upon request, thus validating the division agreement. Koo Kwang-mo's side contended that the agreement reflected the true intentions of the parties involved.
In contrast, the three women claimed in a statement after the first trial ruling that their expressions of intent were based on "false memos and information suppression."
The key issue in the appeal is this gap. Even without a valid will, an agreement among heirs can be established, but expressions of intent based on mistake or fraud can be contested. For the three women, it is crucial to support their claims that misleading explanations influenced their decision to divide the estate. The first trial also did not recognize a causal relationship between fraudulent acts and the agreement.
In the past, a similar inheritance lawsuit occurred among the Samsung family over shares left by founder Lee Byung-chul. His eldest son, Lee Maeng-hee, demanded the return of stocks from his brother, Lee Kun-hee, the chairman of Samsung Electronics. However, in 2014, the appellate court acknowledged some Samsung Life shares as part of the inheritance but rejected the claim due to the expiration of the legal claim period. In the LG case, the first trial dismissed the argument regarding the expiration of the claim period and assessed the validity of the division agreement. Evidence evaluation regarding reports and expressions of intent at the time of the agreement will also be crucial in the appeal.
The disinheritance lawsuit addresses whether Kim Young-sik and Koo Kwang-mo's legal mother-child relationship should be dissolved. Following her loss in the first trial on September 3, Kim stated, "I do not believe I can continue my relationship with Koo Kwang-mo as his mother-in-law and son." She filed an appeal on September 23.
However, the mere intention to end the relationship does not automatically result in disinheritance. Kim's side cited a civil law provision allowing disinheritance claims when adoptive parents have been severely mistreated by their adoptive children. The specific reasons for the first trial's dismissal were not disclosed in court.
Even if disinheritance is granted, it does not automatically change the outcome of the inheritance lawsuit. The Supreme Court has ruled that even if an adoptive mother disinherits after the death of the adoptive father, it does not affect the relationship between the deceased adoptive father and the adopted child. According to this legal principle, even if Kim's claim is accepted, Koo Kwang-mo's status as an heir of the late chairman will not be revoked.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.