Min Hee-jin States She Has “Never Received Documents Related to Provisional Attachment”

According to coverage by [The Gate], the decision on the provisional attachment has been confirmed as a fact. However, former CEO Min’s side stated, “We have never received any documents related to the provisional attachment through the post office or any other channel,” adding, “We are very perplexed to learn through news reports that the provisional attachment was executed based solely on unilateral claims without any opportunity to exercise our right to defense.”

The reason for the perplexity on former CEO Min’s side is not because of the article itself, but because it was reported by a credible media outlet. What truly perplexes Min’s side is that the ‘receipt of service fees by the Style Directing Team Leader’ case, which ADOR cited as the basis for the provisional attachment, is a matter that had already been concluded with a ‘no charges’ decision (non-referral) during the police investigation.

In fact, [The Gate]’s coverage confirmed that on July 14, 2025, the Seoul Yongsan Police Station concluded the charges of occupational breach of trust raised by ADOR with a decision of ‘no charges’.

It was confirmed that the police’s decision not to refer to prosecution at the time explicitly stated, “The actions of the suspects do not constitute a crime.” regarding the controversial ‘direct receipt of service fees by the Style Directing Team Leader,’ the police presented very specific grounds for their judgment.

It was confirmed that the police judged the essence of the case to be a “managerial decision for cost reduction” rather than “pursuit of private profit.”

The police investigation found that “ADOR was identified to have saved costs that would have been paid to external agencies by internalizing the styling work.” The police recognized former CEO Min Hee-jin’s claim of “saving 1 billion won in total company styling costs” during the investigation.

Regarding the nature of the service fees, the police also judged that “the direct contracting method between advertisers and stylists is an industry practice, and it was confirmed that the service fees in question are irrelevant to ADOR’s expenditure or revenue from the outset.”

Furthermore, the police made a final judgment that “it is difficult to view that former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin had any intent to cause damage to the company, and rather, she appears to have fulfilled her duty of loyalty as a representative director.”

In particular, the police drove a wedge in the argument by stating, “Since it was not a business that ADOR was required to perform, nor was it a business performed in the past, it is difficult to view it as ‘misappropriation of business opportunities’.”