On February 12, the Civil Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court dismissed HYBE’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of the termination of its shareholder agreement with Min Hee Jin. The court concluded that HYBE had failed to sufficiently prove grounds for contract termination, including allegations that Min attempted to seize management control. As a result, HYBE has been ordered to pay a total of approximately ₩25.6 billion in stock purchase proceeds, of which around ₩22.5 billion will go directly to Min.
The key issue centered on Min’s exercise of a put option. After stepping down from her position as inside director, she notified HYBE of her intention to sell her shares back to the company in accordance with the shareholder agreement. HYBE refused payment, arguing that Min had violated the contract. However, the court determined that while she may have explored the possibility of ADOR’s independence, it was difficult to conclude that such actions reached the level of execution or fundamentally undermined the contract. Allegations that she attempted to “take NewJeans away” were also deemed insufficiently substantiated.
The ruling effectively places a massive payout in Min’s hands, marking a major legal and financial victory for her.
In stark contrast, NewJeans recently faced an unfavorable outcome in their own legal dispute. In October last year, the Civil Division 41 of the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of ADOR in a lawsuit confirming the validity of the group’s exclusive contracts. The court stated that the dismissal of a CEO does not automatically constitute a breakdown in management obligations, rejecting the members’ claims. As a result, the group was required to return under the agency’s management system.
Yet tensions remain unresolved. ADOR has since terminated its exclusive contract with member Danielle and filed a damages lawsuit reportedly worth ₩43 billion against her, her family, and Min Hee Jin. Danielle’s side has indicated it will respond firmly.
Further controversy erupted when Min Hee Jin, during a recent press conference addressing “tampering” allegations involving NewJeans, directly mentioned members’ families in discussing responsibility. For someone who once referred to herself as “NewJeans’ mother,” the move sparked mixed reactions among fans. The symbolic language of protection appeared to shift into the sharper tone of legal accountability, creating a moment of irony that did not go unnoticed.
Ultimately, the broader conflict has split into two distinct paths. Min Hee Jin has secured more than ₩20 billion through a court-validated contractual right. Meanwhile, NewJeans must navigate the implications of a confirmed exclusive contract ruling while reassessing their future direction. Though they stood at the center of the same storm, the outcomes have diverged dramatically.
Industry observers note that shareholder agreements and exclusive artist contracts operate under entirely different legal frameworks. One case hinged on the interpretation of contractual clauses related to equity and termination standards, while the other revolved around the scope of management obligations. The paradox underscores how two battles within the same conflict can produce sharply contrasting results.
Sources: Nate
You must be logged in to post a comment.