HYBE, Min clash over timing of contract termination

Dec 22, 2025, 08:53 am

A legal dispute between HYBE and Min Hee-jin, former CEO of ADOR, has returned to court, centering on whether a shareholder agreement was lawfully terminated and whether Min’s put option remains valid.

As hearings progressed, the gap between the two sides showed no sign of narrowing, with the core issues focusing on the legitimacy of the contract termination and the timing at which it took effect.

On Dec. 18, the Civil Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court held a hearing on HYBE’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of the termination of the shareholder agreement, as well as Min’s counterclaim demanding payment for shares following her exercise of a put option.

Min appeared in person and testified for more than five hours. Including previous sessions, examinations of the parties have now exceeded 12 hours in total. Exchanges between the two sides were sharp, prompting the court on several occasions to step in to moderate the tone and relevance of arguments.

HYBE raised concerns over private KakaoTalk messages Min exchanged with a shaman in March 2021, before ADOR’s establishment. Citing phrases such as “let’s take it in three years” and “I want to have it,” HYBE suggested Min may have harbored negative views toward HYBE or a desire for ownership even before ADOR was founded.

Min countered that the messages were private conversations unrelated to the shareholder agreement and reflected emotional expressions during the process of building HYBE’s headquarters. She stressed that personal emotions should not be conflated with business decisions.

The relationship between Min and BANA also resurfaced as a point of contention. HYBE alleged Min attempted to circumvent non-compete obligations by using BANA prior to ADOR’s launch. Min denied the claim, saying the conversations cited dated to April 2021 and had no connection to the shareholder agreement or ADOR’s establishment. She added that there were no business contracts or equity ties with BANA.

Min did acknowledge that BANA CEO Kim Ki-hyun was a former romantic partner and that she had agreed to share part of the proceeds from her put option with him. She explained that this was a way to personally compensate creative contributors to the NewJeans project, as company funds could not be used for that purpose.

Addressing allegations of favoritism toward a former boyfriend, Min said the relationship had already ended before the project began and that there was no private interaction during work.

Questions also arose over an emergency YouTube livestream by NewJeans members in September last year. Min admitted she was aware of the broadcast in advance but insisted it was not intended to defend her. She said the livestream stemmed from the members’ anxiety amid leadership uncertainty and organizational changes.

HYBE further alleged that in April 2024 an ADOR vice president accessed and downloaded files from HYBE’s finance-related folders. Min denied receiving or sharing such materials, saying she was unaware of why the incident occurred.

Throughout the hearings, Min repeatedly argued that HYBE’s audit and subsequent actions were retaliatory. In her closing remarks, she said the lawsuit was “not about money,” voicing objections to being targeted without any contractual breach and criticizing the exposure of private communications in court and the media.

HYBE maintains that Min attempted to privatize NewJeans and ADOR, causing damage to the company and its labels, and therefore terminated the shareholder agreement in July last year. In August, HYBE removed Min as CEO through a board resolution. Min later stepped down as an internal director in November and notified HYBE of her intention to exercise the put option.

HYBE argues that because the shareholder agreement had already been terminated in July, the put option is invalid. Min’s side counters that there was no contractual breach, making the termination notice itself invalid and, by extension, preserving the validity of both the put option and her claim for share purchase payment.

At present, neither argument has been definitively accepted. The court’s decision will hinge on the evidence submitted, the wording of the shareholder agreement, and how its provisions are interpreted. As industry observers note, the case ultimately comes down to when and under what conditions the contract ended—and what rights, if any, survived that termination.

#HYBE #Min Hee-jin #ADOR #NewJeans #shareholder agreement