On December 18, the 31st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) heard two related civil cases together:
- HYBE v. Min Hee-jin et al. — seeking confirmation that the shareholder agreement was validly terminated
- Min Hee-jin et al. v. HYBE — seeking payment of shares tied to the exercise of a put option
The hearing marked the third examination of Min Hee-jin and functioned as one of the most substantive sessions to date.
The “Shaman KakaoTalk” Messages: Relevance Dispute
HYBE introduced KakaoTalk messages Min exchanged with a shaman in March 2021, questioning phrases such as “let’s get it within three years” and “I want to have it.”
Min strongly objected to their relevance:
- The messages predate ADOR’s founding
- No shareholder agreement existed at the time
- No business relationship with BANA existed then
She argued the messages referred to practical matters—such as the move into the HYBE building—and said the remaining language had no special meaning. She questioned why she was being asked to explain messages that existed before any contractual obligations were in place.
When HYBE suggested the messages reflected long-standing negative sentiment toward the company, Min responded that emotions are irrelevant, and that the decision to establish ADOR was made by then-CEO Park Ji-won and Chairman Bang Si-hyuk, not by her alone.
Media Leak Allegations: “NJZ Joined Hands With BANA”
HYBE asked Min about media reports claiming that “NJZ joined hands with BANA.”
BANA stands for BEATS AND NATIVES, a hiphop label in the South Korea.
Min acknowledged seeing the article and described the outlet as pro-HYBE, but made a separate point:
Because ADOR and BANA had an exclusive contractual relationship at the time, the article’s framing implied that someone had provided inside information to the press. She stated she only learned how the article came to be published during the court proceedings.
BANA Under Scrutiny: Relationship, Role, and Contracts
Min confirmed several baseline facts that HYBE focused on:
- BANA provided exclusive A&R services to ADOR
- Kim Ki-hyun, BANA’s CEO, founded the company
- Kim Ki-hyun is Min’s former boyfriend, but she stated they broke up before the NewJeans project began and had no personal relationship during the contract period
The ADOR Trademark Deal
HYBE questioned ADOR’s acquisition of the “ADOR” trademark which was originally owned by the BANA CEO/Founder and Min’s former boyfriend.
Min explained:
- ₩17 million (≈ $12,000 USD) was initially discussed
- The total payment was ₩100 million (≈ $75,000 USD)
- The amount included logo usage and future design services
She argued the price reflected fair market value.
BANA’s Compensation Structure
HYBE emphasized what it described as unusually generous terms:
- ₩33 million per month (≈ $24,000–$25,000 USD) in service fees
- Additional staff costs covered
- 5% of NewJeans’ annual sales as incentives
HYBE questioned whether these contracts were formally approved by ADOR’s board. Min said she believed approval had been given based on discussions with Park Ji-won and that Bang Si-hyuk was aware, though she could not recall the exact board process.
The Second Contract: Incentives Increase
A later contract revision changed the incentive structure:
- Incentives based on 5% of cumulative total sales, including past albums
- Paid directly to Kim Ki-hyun
- Annual incentives increased from ₩400 million (≈ $300,000 USD) to ₩1 billion (≈ $750,000 USD)
Min said she did not consider ₩1 billion (≈ $750,000 USD) excessive, arguing:
- NewJeans achieved exceptional success
- Kim Ki-hyun contributed directly
- He does not receive copyright royalties
- Freelancers in K-pop often earn significantly more
HYBE’s “Even If Nothing Is Released” Argument
HYBE argued that under the first contract, ADOR has to pay BANA even if no music was released which they have been doing.
Min rejected this, stating there was no scenario in which BANA “did nothing.”
HYBE also said BANA continued receiving tens of millions of won per month even after NewJeans announced contract termination. Min responded that this occurred after her removal, while HYBE said the payments stemmed from contracts she signed.
The Put-Option Pledge to Kim Ki-hyun
HYBE raised a written pledge in which Min agreed to give Kim Ki-hyun a portion of the proceeds she would receive from exercising her put option.
Min said the pledge was voluntary and that she chose to compensate him out of her own share, after consulting then-CEO Park Ji-won.
“HYBE’s Seven Deadly Sins” Document
HYBE referenced an internal document listing alleged misconduct. This document was discovered in the computer of the former ADOR VP and was believed to have been a part of Min’s plan to defame HYBE. It contained what Min alleged to be HYBE’s wrongdoing including ILLIT plagiarizing NewJeans (civil court already denied this claim).
Min rejected the framing, saying:
- She never received a formal “document”
- It was merely a list of facts
- Calling it a document exaggerated its meaning
When HYBE suggested she reviewed it via KakaoTalk, Min said she did not understand the claim and accused opposing counsel of imagining a narrative.
Key Financial Figures in Dispute
Min’s 2024 compensation: ₩2.7 billion (≈ $2.0–$2.1 million USD)
Share purchase amount sought via put option: ₩26–27.8 billion (≈ $19–21 million USD)
Min Hee-jin’s Claim: HYBE’s Compensation System Is Structurally Flawed
During questioning, Min Hee-jin directly challenged HYBE’s internal compensation system, arguing that it is inconsistently applied and excessively generous to some executives while failing to fairly reward performance.
When HYBE’s counsel asked whether any financial promises were made while recruiting Lee Sang-woo, former deputy CEO of ADOR, Min responded that the issue was not about personal financial guarantees but about compensation philosophy. She stated that she places significant importance on compensation and believed it was her responsibility to ensure employees were rewarded appropriately, emphasizing that there were no private benefits involved.
Min went on to criticize HYBE’s broader compensation structure, stating that she did not believe it was properly designed. She argued that HYBE had, in some cases, granted stock options excessively and without sufficient evaluation.
In response to HYBE’s question about whether she believed label executives were being overcompensated, Min said that compensation should be based strictly on merit and performance. She explained that her concern was whether certain label executives received stock options due to measurable results or because of their personal relationship with Chairman Bang Si-hyuk.
Regarding her own compensation, Min maintained that it was reasonable and proportionate to her performance. She rejected the suggestion that it was excessive, stating that if anything, it may have been insufficient given the results she delivered. She further added that she was unsure whether HYBE conducted proper performance evaluations before issuing compensation and described the current system as one in which rewards appeared to be “handed out excessively.”
Min concluded that, in that context, she felt a personal obligation as CEO to ensure fair compensation for her employees, especially where she believed the existing system failed to do so.
Min Hee-jin on Work Ethic, Results, and Why She Says Her Compensation Was Earned
Min Hee-jin framed her compensation and incentives as a direct reflection of her work ethic and measurable results, repeatedly emphasizing that outcomes—not sentiment—should be the standard.
Describing her approach to work, Min stated that she often worked from home to avoid wasting time on daily routines, saying that she would “get up and start working immediately” because even basic tasks felt inefficient. She added that she did not concern herself with personal expenses such as taxi fares, presenting this as evidence of her focus on productivity rather than personal comfort.
She urged the court to evaluate her based on results, stating, “You can judge me by my accomplishments,” and pointed to her past work at SM Entertainment as well as her role in building NewJeans into a top-tier group within two years. On that basis, she argued that receiving the highest incentives was justified, stating that she earned them because she “produced the best results.”
Addressing criticism of her compensation, Min maintained that her incentives were reasonable and not excessive, adding that they may have been insufficient relative to performance.
In support of her broader argument, Min referenced the internal performance hierarchy within HYBE, noting that Big Hit Music consistently ranks as HYBE’s top-earning label, followed by Pledis Entertainment due to SEVENTEEN, and then Belift Lab through ENHYPEN, while also pointing out that Belift reinvested much of its earnings into launching new groups. Her implication was that compensation should be evaluated in relation to actual results and reinvestment outcomes, rather than treated uniformly.
Plagiarism Allegations and Industry Survival
Min also revisited her allegation that ILLIT, a girl group under HYBE subsidiary Belift Lab, plagiarized NewJeans. Raising her voice during testimony, she argued that plagiarism is often underestimated by those unfamiliar with the industry, but that for creators, it can be a matter of survival.
She stated that the core issue was not a single instance, but an accumulation of structural problems—specifically, a parent company mass-producing similar concepts, failing to sufficiently promote distinct acts, and allowing creative overlap to persist. According to Min, these factors compounded over time, making the plagiarism issue impossible for her to ignore.
She explained that remaining silent would have meant accepting denial and inaction, and that this was why she chose to formally raise objections rather than allow the matter to pass without challenge.
Shareholder Agreement Revisions and the Exclusive Contract Issue
Min Hee-jin also addressed discussions in early 2024 concerning proposed revisions to the shareholder agreement, during which a demand was reportedly made for the right to terminate NewJeans’ exclusive contract.
Min denied personally making such a request, stating, “I did not make that request myself. As far as I know, it was made on my behalf by the law firm representing me.” She added that the request was not initiated at her direction and suggested it was handled independently by her legal counsel.
The Reporter Recording and Claims of Discrimination
Min further clarified her role in the disclosure of a recording in which a reporter allegedly claimed that HYBE’s PR team had disparaged NewJeans’ performance. Contrary to earlier reports that the recording had been obtained through the parents of a NewJeans member, Min testified that she herself was the source.
She explained that she raised the issue because she believed NewJeans was being treated unfairly within HYBE, stating that she felt compelled to protest what she described as discrimination against the group. According to Min, she informed a member’s father that she had received the report and suggested using it as leverage in negotiations with HYBE. She testified that because the father was outspoken, he volunteered to raise the issue publicly, and she proceeded on that basis.
The NewJeans Guerrilla Livestream: Min’s Acknowledgment of Involvement
Min also admitted that she was aware in advance of NewJeans’ guerrilla-style livestream in which the members issued an ultimatum to HYBE, including a demand for her reinstatement as CEO.
She acknowledged that she:
- Asked the members to clear their schedules so they could conduct the livestream,
- Provided them with the contact information of a person who could assist with setting it up.
However, Min asserted that the livestream was not carried out to protect her, but rather to protect the members themselves. She testified that the group felt harmed by the sudden leadership vacuum and the broader public controversy surrounding ADOR, and that the livestream was their response to those circumstances.
This testimony stands in contrast to NewJeans’ initial public statements, in which the members claimed that no one had helped them prepare the livestream and that no one was aware of it in advance.
What Comes Next
HYBE stated it plans to present a witness it claims can prove Min violated the shareholder agreement. Min’s side argued it must know the witness’s identity in advance to prepare.
