Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin returned to the Seoul Central District Court on November 27 for another round of questioning in her escalating legal battle with HYBE. The session provided one of the clearest windows yet into the fractured relationship between Min and the company she once helped shape.
The day’s hearings covered two lawsuits running in parallel:
- HYBE’s case seeking confirmation that Min’s shareholder agreement was terminated,
- and Min’s own lawsuit demanding payment tied to her exercise of a put option.
Across several hours of testimony, Min criticized HYBE’s internal decision-making, defended her own actions, and attempted to distance herself from damning KakaoTalk conversations with her former vice president. The exchanges grew tense enough that the presiding judge intervened multiple times to calm both sides.
What follows is a comprehensive account of the claims, rebuttals, and courtroom dynamics that unfolded.
1. Min’s Recruitment Story: “Bang Si-hyuk Courted Me”
Min began by revisiting the beginning of her relationship with HYBE. She testified that Bang Si-hyuk personally pursued her in 2018 after she left SM Entertainment—so intensely that she described it as “kneeling,” likening it to a romantic proposal where a man asks a woman’s parents for her hand in marriage.
According to Min:
- Bang contacted her just two days after she resigned from SM.
- He told her he had “an informant” inside SM who alerted him to her departure.
- He even called her parents directly, saying:
- “I truly want her at HYBE so your daughter can create freely.”
Min said Bang asked her to help him produce a girl group after the failure of GLAM, which she framed as a pivotal reason she was recruited.
She also noted she had been discussing options with Kakao Entertainment, but decided against joining them because, in her words, Kakao “had too many areas to sort through.”
2. The Core Dispute: Termination, Put Options, and Accusations of Privatization
In July of last year, HYBE terminated Min’s shareholder agreement, alleging that she attempted to privatize New Jeans and ADOR, act independently, and cause harm to HYBE and its labels.
Min was officially dismissed as ADOR’s CEO in August.
Min’s response in court remained consistent:
- She denies breaching the agreement.
- She argues HYBE’s termination was unlawful.
- Therefore, her put option exercise should still be honored.
Under that put option, HYBE would have been obligated to purchase her stake—valued using a 13× multiplier of ADOR’s average operating profit—for roughly 26 billion won.
HYBE rejected her request, saying the agreement was no longer in effect.
3. The New Jeans Contract Issue and Evidence of “Independence Plans”
The dispute deepened when New Jeans lost the first trial concerning the validity of their exclusive contract with ADOR. In that ruling, the court accepted various KakaoTalk transcripts as credible evidence—specifically conversations pointing to Min’s early attempts to operate independently from HYBE.
This ruling is widely expected to influence the shareholder agreement case currently underway.
Min resigned as an internal director of ADOR in November and notified HYBE of her put option exercise shortly afterward, setting off the current litigation.
4. Courtroom Tension and Judge’s Intervention
The hearing on the 27th was notable for its confrontational atmosphere. Min frequently answered before HYBE’s lawyer finished speaking, while HYBE’s side accused her of being evasive.
At several points, the judge interrupted to regain control of the room.
To HYBE’s lawyer, he warned:
“Don’t get emotional. Saying something is ‘bad’ has no place in a trial.”
To Min, he offered direct, almost blunt guidance:
- “Listen carefully and answer appropriately. Start with yes, no, I don’t know, or I don’t remember.”
- “Don’t respond to every remark.”
His candid tone momentarily produced laughter, but the tension remained.
5. Promotion Controversy: LE SSERAFIM vs. New Jeans
Min repeated a claim she has made publicly before: HYBE promoted LE SSERAFIM properly but not New Jeans.
She offered no documentary evidence to substantiate this but cited two points:
- Her interpretation of Bang Si-hyuk’s motives.
- An alleged statement from former HYBE CEO Park Ji-won that Bang instructed him to focus on LE SSERAFIM and not New Jeans.
Min argued this behavior fits a larger pattern—Bang courting people when needed and discarding them later—though she did not provide concrete examples.
She also said her December 2022 appearance on You Quiz happened only because she felt she had no other avenue to promote New Jeans.
6. The Put Option Multiple: 13× vs. 30×
HYBE questioned Min about a proposal to raise her put option multiplier from 13× to 30×, which would have raised the payout to around 137 billion won.
Min claimed:
- She did not suggest it.
- Her lawyer proposed it independently.
- She had delegated everything to her legal team due to heavy workloads.
- She never calculated the potential payout herself.
7. “Project 1945” and the Role of ADOR’s Vice President
HYBE spent considerable time interrogating Min over the controversial “Project 1945” document written by ADOR Vice President Lee.
The document allegedly outlined plans to:
- revise the shareholder agreement,
- identify executive weaknesses,
- and create discord within HYBE.
Min denied involvement:
- “I had no knowledge of that document being created.”
- She said she even scolded Lee via KakaoTalk for being overly fixated on such matters.
- She insisted Lee acted alone, motivated by grievances or a desire to impress her.
HYBE countered that Lee produced detailed reports about Min’s alleged independence plans and did so under her direction. Min rejected this entirely:
- “He could have been venting or trying to look competent. But is there evidence I gave him orders?”
8. The Question of Investor Contacts and Alleged Independence Plans
Min framed these interactions as:
- “chatter,”
- informal conversations happening after hours,
- and not actionable plans.
She suggested HYBE was twisting casual exchanges into evidence to justify her removal.
9. What Happens Next
The court is scheduled to conclude oral arguments on December 18, with a first-trial ruling expected early next year.
The outcome will determine:
- whether HYBE’s termination of the shareholder agreement was valid,
- whether Min’s put option must be honored,
- and how responsibility for New Jeans’ contract situation is ultimately assigned.
Each ruling carries significant consequences for both sides and will shape how Korean entertainment companies handle governance, autonomy, and internal disputes going forward.
