On February 20, Sports Kyunghyang reported that it had obtained the first-instance ruling in the shareholder agreement lawsuit between HYBE and Min Hee Jin, noting that KakaoTalk conversations between V and Min were accepted as evidence in the case.
However, the issue arose because the ruling reportedly revealed the real names of the individuals involved in the conversation. Typically, court rulings are delivered only to the plaintiff and defendant. When such documents are later published on public platforms, personal names are generally redacted. As a result, an unredacted version of the ruling would ordinarily only be in the possession of the litigating parties.
Following the report, online debate quickly erupted. Some netizens speculated that the ruling may have been leaked by Min Hee Jin’s side, as she was the prevailing party in the case. Observers argued that HYBE, having lost the lawsuit, would have little to gain from leaking the document.
During Min Hee Jin’s fourth press conference on February 25, a question was raised regarding the background of the alleged leak. According to Women’s News, attorney Kim Sun Woong, Min’s legal representative who attended the conference, responded, “There is nothing for us to comment on.” He added, “When submitting the evidence, we requested the court to keep it confidential. We do not know through what route the non-public evidence was reported by the media. We believe this is an issue that should be resolved between the media outlet and the court.”
However, some legal analysts have suggested that this statement may not align with the current circumstances. A legal industry insider explained that when submitting evidence containing trade secrets or other sensitive material, parties may file a request for restriction of access and copying. Whether such a request was made can reportedly be confirmed through a case search. While HYBE’s application records appear in the system, there is reportedly no visible record of such a request from Min Hee Jin’s side.
HYBE has also denied any involvement in the alleged leak. The company dismissed the speculation, stating, “It is nonsense to suspect that the losing party leaked the ruling.”
Sources: Nate
You must be logged in to post a comment.