Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin and HYBE clashed intensely in court, with Min Hee-jin breaking down in tears during long testimony while HYBE framed her actions as an attempt to evade executive responsibility.
The hearing, held at the Seoul Central District Court (Civil Division 31, presiding Judge Nam In-soo) on November 27, addressed HYBE’s lawsuit to confirm termination of the shareholder agreement and Min Hee-jin’s claim for payment under a put option. This session marked a continuation from the September hearings, with both sides directly confronting each other.
Key Issues in the Dispute
The main points of contention include:
- Non-compete obligations in the shareholder agreement
- Contact with external investors and potential interference with management rights
- Validity of the put option exercise
- Alleged leaks of internal planning documents
HYBE emphasized that the dispute is not a simple personal or organizational conflict, but a contractual violation affecting corporate structure.
HYBE’s Perspective: “She Was an Executive, Not Just a Creator”
HYBE’s legal team highlighted that Min Hee-jin, while a creative force, also held executive responsibilities as ADOR’s CEO. “Her obligations as a representative cannot be avoided based on emotional appeals. This includes oversight of projects like ‘Project 1945,’ regardless of who led the planning.”
HYBE stressed that the issue was not minor production interference but actions potentially undermining shareholder trust and the company’s governance.
Min Hee-jin’s Defense
Min Hee-jin argued that certain internal documents were the work of a deputy executive and denied any intention to seize management rights. HYBE countered that as CEO, she cannot disclaim responsibility for actions within the organization.
HYBE also clarified that the dispute is separate from NewJeans operations, assuring that the group’s activities and support would continue uninterrupted.
Put Option Conflict
The put option, valued at approximately 28.7 billion KRW, is another flashpoint. Min Hee-jin maintains that the option is valid due to wrongful contract termination, while HYBE contends the exercise occurred after termination and is therefore invalid. The matter carries implications for future similar cases, making it a high-stakes legal issue.
This court battle ultimately raises the question: how much weight and responsibility should the title of CEO carry? The court is scheduled to conclude hearings on December 18, with a first-instance ruling expected in early 2026.
Sources: Daum
You must be logged in to post a comment.