Min Hee-jin v. HYBE: Lawsuit for Stock Purchase Payment, 2nd Hearing & HYBE v. Min Hee-jin: Lawsuit to Confirm Termination of Shareholders’ Agreement, 4th Hearing (Consolidated Hearing)
On the afternoon of September 11, the 31st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In-su) held hearings for the lawsuit filed by HYBE against the former CEO and one other person seeking confirmation of shareholder agreement termination, as well as the lawsuit filed by the former CEO and two others against HYBE claiming stock purchase price related to the exercise of a put option.
📌 Trial Overview and Notable Points
–Case Name: Lawsuit for confirmation of shareholder agreement termination and stock purchase price claim of approximately 26 billion won
–Court: 31st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In-su)
–Date: Afternoon of September 11, 2025, Hearing
–Key Parties: Plaintiff (HYBE Corporation), Defendant (Min Hee-jin, former CEO of ADOR, and others)
–Procedural Note: The examination that day lasted over 4 hours, consisting solely of the examination of the plaintiff’s witness, CLO Jung Jin-soo. Due to time constraints, the defendant, CEO Min Hee-jin, was only able to conduct limited cross-examination within the scope of the witness’s testimony, and was restricted from freely presenting counterarguments. The examination of the defendant herself is scheduled to continue on November 27.
–Information Asymmetry Controversy: According to Team Bunnies, there were indications during the trial that the plaintiff’s PR team was sharing trial proceedings in real-time through a private group chat with reporters, highlighting concerns about information asymmetry in the battle for public opinion.
📌 Plaintiff (HYBE) Side
Plaintiff’s witness CLO Jung Jin-soo claimed that the defendant used the ‘slave contract’ narrative to make excessive demands and attempted to seize control of ADOR through a carefully orchestrated plan.
–Excessive Demands Beyond ‘Exceptional Compensation’: The witness testified that while the 13x multiple put option was already “an exceptionally high level of compensation,” the defendant demanded during renegotiations: ▲increasing the put option multiple to 30x, ▲guaranteed minimum regardless of performance, and ▲sole authority as CEO to sign exclusive contracts and external agreements. The witness claimed the defendant was trying to become “a CEO with unlimited power whom no one could challenge.”
–Existence of a ‘Concrete Execution Plan’: The witness stated that documents discovered during the audit contained specific execution plans including: ‘Exercise put option in January ’25 to convert approximately 100 billion won to cash → Turn ADOR into an empty shell → File rights infringement lawsuit for NewJeans → Find financial investors to recommend selling ADOR to HYBE.’
–All-Out Attack Disguised as ‘Whistleblowing’: The witness claimed that the defendant’s ‘ILLIT plagiarism’ allegations were part of an attack to damage HYBE’s reputation. Particularly regarding the act of persuading NewJeans members’ parents to send protest emails, the witness testified that “rather than trying to resolve issues, I felt they were trying to deliberately cause problems,” and that this was an attempt to destabilize artists and separate them from HYBE.
📌 Defendant (Min Hee-jin) Side
The defendant’s side countered that the plaintiff’s claims are a ‘fabricated story’ constructed from selectively favorable information, and that the witness consistently responded with ‘I don’t remember’ regarding unfavorable key contexts.
–Key Context of the ‘Unlimited Power’ Demand Claim: The defendant’s counsel presented a ‘shareholder agreement comparison document’ submitted during renegotiations and asked if the witness remembered the explanation stating that the demand for strengthened CEO authority was intended ‘to prevent HYBE from unfairly adjusting the contract to lower the multiple.’ This was a crucial point demonstrating that the defendant’s demands were for ‘defensive rights’ rather than ‘power hunger,’ but the witness responded, “I don’t remember well.”
–Allegations of Selective Use of ‘KakaoTalk Evidence’: The defendant’s side pointed out that the plaintiff was deliberately ignoring unfavorable content among the vast KakaoTalk conversations. When presented with conversation content actually supporting the defendant’s claims—such as ADOR’s Vice President saying they would ‘look into the shareholder agreement negotiations through an acquaintance on the plaintiff’s side’—the witness responded, “I don’t remember.” The counsel strongly criticized the bias in evidence selection, asking “Did you simply not see it, or did you ignore it?”
–Allegations of ‘Fabricated Media Play’ and Witness’s Responsibility Evasion:
○Deliberate Information Leaks: When counsel directly asked, “Are you aware that HYBE’s media liaison provided information to a reporter group chat?”, the witness denied it, saying “I am not aware of that.”
○Responsibility Evasion: Regarding the flood of audit-related articles, the witness deflected responsibility by asking, “Does the Chief Legal Officer necessarily have to be aware of articles?” and suggesting that reporters reacted sensitively because of “a (different) tampering incident that became a major social issue.”
–The Fiction of the ‘Evidence-Free Investor Contact Theory’: The defendant dismissed the plaintiff’s investor contact allegations, stating “It’s just rumors, and there is no actual evidence of contact or any such materials, is there?” To date, the plaintiff has failed to submit any concrete evidence that the defendant met with domestic or foreign investors.
–Legitimacy of ‘Whistleblowing’ and Contradictions in Plaintiff’s Explanations:
○ILLIT Copying Allegations: The defendant emphasized that the allegations were “discussed by people across all communities before I personally raised them,” and that it was a legitimate issue raised as a CEO regarding already-formed public opinion.
○Album Dumping Allegations: The defendant raised allegations based on specific data and even disclosed conversation content showing signs of album dumping by other labels under HYBE. The plaintiff explained that those conversations were ‘intended to please Min Hee-jin at the time,’ but when the court requested disclosure of related data, they refused, amplifying the suspicions.
📌 Key Issues and Trial Characteristics
–Witness’s ‘Selective Memory’: The witness consistently responded with “I don’t remember” or “I don’t remember well” to unfavorable evidence presented by the defendant’s counsel (KakaoTalk conversations, contract explanation text, etc.), raising questions about the credibility of the testimony.
–Witness’s Retraction of Statements: The defendant strongly pressed that denying testimony about the plaintiff’s past promise to resolve the non-compete clause constituted perjury. After repeated challenges asking “Why are you giving false testimony when there are recordings?”, the witness eventually said “I will correct that my expression was wrong” and modified the previous statement.
–Witness’s Expression of Discomfort: During the examination, the plaintiff’s witness requested through counsel to change seats, saying they felt uncomfortable with CEO Min Hee-jin sitting next to them—an unusual scene in court proceedings.
–Defendant’s Proactive Attitude: When the presiding judge mentioned time concerns as the trial extended, CEO Min Hee-jin replied “I’m fine” and showed a proactive willingness to see the hearing through to the end.
📌 Upcoming Schedule
–November 27, 2025: Continuation of examination of CEO Min Hee-jin
–December 18, 2025: Final hearing
🔗 Reference Links