HYBE vs. MIN HEEJIN: The battle continues, new trial today

Min Hee-jin, the “mother of NEWJEANS” and former director of ADOR, is entering a legal battle against HYBE over the exercise of her put option.

The 31st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court will hold the first hearing on June 12 regarding the lawsuit filed by Min Hee-jin against HYBE, seeking payment of approximately 28.7 billion won (about 19 million euros) related to her exercise of a put option.

After resigning from her internal director position at ADOR in November 2024, Min Hee-jin notified HYBE of her intention to exercise this clause included in the shareholders’ agreement. According to this clause, she can sell her stake to HYBE at a price equivalent to 13 times the average operating profit of the last two years, proportional to her 75% contractual rights over that share.

According to an audit report published in April 2024, Min Hee-jin owns 573,160 shares of ADOR, representing 18% of the capital. This calculation results in an estimated value of about 26 billion won (nearly 17 million euros). However, in July 2024, HYBE announced it had terminated the shareholders’ agreement, alleging a breach of trust by Min Hee-jin — making the legal dispute between the two parties even more tense.

In a statement at that time, Min Hee-jin declared:

“I will hold HYBE legally accountable for breaching the shareholders’ agreement, which I myself decided to terminate. I will take all necessary legal actions against the numerous illegal acts committed by HYBE and its associates.”

She added:

“After more than seven hellish months of conflict caused by an illegal audit initiated by HYBE, I have respected the shareholders’ agreement and fought to get ADOR back on track. But HYBE continues to deny fault and refuses to change. I therefore judged that continuing my efforts would be a waste of time.”

Min Hee-jin concluded:

“HYBE’s abuses in 2024 will go down in K-pop history as an unprecedented precedent. It is unacceptable for one individual to destroy the very nature of our industry out of pure malice. What they have done is unforgivable.”

Furthermore, during the second hearing in the lawsuit between HYBE and Min Hee-jin over the confirmation of termination of the shareholders’ agreement (on May 17), the court requested clarifications regarding the complaint about the put option.

Min Hee-jin’s team explained:

“This case concerns the termination of the contract, while the other pertains to the payment for the put option. Regarding the latter, we believe the contract was not validly terminated, which justifies exercising the option. The parties involved differ slightly: in the current complaint, there is one additional plaintiff. The put option was exercised in November, within the contractually stipulated period.”

They continued:

“To summarize: first, our side terminated the contract citing HYBE’s breaches; HYBE, on the other hand, claimed the contract was still valid, then exercised its own termination afterward. So both parties claim termination, but at different times.”

HYBE responded:

“Both sides claim termination, but the legal grounds differ. It will need to be determined who is at fault. To date, Min Hee-jin has not yet submitted a written response specifically addressing our grounds for termination. We await that response before presenting our evidence plan.”

Ultimately, the court decided to join the two cases (contract termination and put option) to be judged together, stating: