On the afternoon of June 12, the Seoul Central District Court (31st Civil Division) held the third hearing for the lawsuit filed by HYBE against former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin and another individual to confirm the termination of a shareholder agreement.
During the hearing, HYBE’s side stated, “The purpose of entering into this shareholder agreement was for ADOR’s growth and development. To achieve this, the defendant was obligated not to engage in any actions that could harm ADOR. However, the defendant violated this obligation, undermining the agreement’s purpose. As these violations were confirmed, the plaintiff terminated the agreement. Following the termination, a call option was exercised. In 2024 alone, Min Hee-jin was paid a salary of 2.7 billion KRW by ADOR. Meanwhile, she attempted to take NewJeans away. She is now demanding that her shares be bought for 27.8 billion KRW while still at ADOR, which is absolutely unacceptable.”
They continued, “The defendant claims that the issues with HYBE are insignificant, as if trying to deflect responsibility. They say everything started with an audit, but as early as March 14, 2024, Min Hee-jin was already discussing reviewing exclusive contracts in detail. On March 30, parents sent protest emails. The defendant claims the audit began due to these parental complaints, but on March 29, the defendant and the parents had already met at ADOR’s office. The meeting materials we submitted show that the ultimate goal was to exit HYBE. These materials also include claims about raising plagiarism allegations.”
HYBE further argued, “The growth and development of ADOR depend heavily on NewJeans, its sole artist, remaining with the company. It is critical for the artist to actively perform during their exclusive contract period. However, Min Hee-jin raised various allegations and provoked the parents. She instructed her company’s vice presidents to send protest emails under the parents’ names on March 29 and 30. Although they claim the parents’ protests began on March 31, we submitted evidence showing that the email drafts were prepared on March 30, along with their creation history.”
They added, “Looking at the drafting process, they started by referencing specific clauses in the exclusive contract, particularly termination clauses, and searched for provisions to dispute. They discussed who should receive the protest emails, deciding on the vice president rather than an external party. The emails included the phrase ‘perplexing,’ which Min Hee-jin frequently uses. She also gave detailed instructions, such as sending the email to a specific member’s mother or attaching Hyein’s father’s name. How could we not initiate an investigation and audit after discovering these actions? We ask the defendant this question.”
In contrast, Min Hee-jin’s side countered, “The shareholder agreement termination notice was issued on July 8. However, prior to that, there was an injunction, and the situation was maintained following the May injunction without issues. The plaintiff claims this is about ADOR’s independence from HYBE, the privatization of ADOR and NewJeans, and labels it as an attempt to usurp management rights. Only long after filing the lawsuit did the claim of ‘stealing NewJeans’ emerge.”
They elaborated, “The events unfolded as follows: after the July shareholder agreement termination, ADOR’s board, acting on instructions, removed Min Hee-jin as CEO. They demanded the return of her shares and even filed an injunction, which was dismissed. She exercised her put option and resigned in November. Meanwhile, NewJeans members were left like orphans, unable to receive proper care or protection. We asked for Min Hee-jin to be reinstated as CEO to restore the previous system, but they refused, leading to the events of November.”
They further argued, “The plaintiff’s claim suggests that the defendant was so cunning that, in April, they sent a corrective action email knowing it would trigger an audit and harassment. They allege we planned to hold a press conference to counter it, get fired, and then take the members with us. They treat this as a scripted novel, which they now call the amended claim. Until the lawsuit was filed, the stated cause was not ‘stealing NewJeans’ but ADOR’s independence and the privatization of ADOR and NewJeans. Beyond the May preliminary injunction materials, no additional evidence has been provided.”
HYBE insists that Min Hee-jin’s actions were calculated attempts to break away and take control of NewJeans, while Min Hee-jin’s camp argues she was pushed out unfairly for seeking independence and better protection for the group. As the legal battle intensifies, the court must now determine whether HYBE’s termination of the shareholder agreement was justified—or part of a larger power struggle over one of K-pop’s most influential rookie groups.