HYBE and Min Heejin presented their final arguments in the validity of the termination of Min Heejin’s shareholder agreement at the final hearing on January 15.
MIN HEEJIN SAID SHE WAS BEING PUNISHED FOR STANDING OUT
Min Heejin’s camp concentrated on three points.
HYBE’s case is built almost entirely on selectively edited KakaoTalk messages
She has insisted that she doens’t remember the context of those Kakaotalk messages and that some of them were pointless chatters.
Min Hee-jin’s said there was nothing to actually take.
She did not hold a controlling ownership stake in ADOR, nor did she possess sufficient shares to unilaterally remove the parent company or reconstitute governance. There were no confirmed outside investors, no binding term sheets, no capital commitments, and no formal documentation that would indicate an imminent transfer of control. No acquisition vehicle was formed. No financing structure existed. No execution phase was ever reached.
In corporate terms, the elements required to “steal” or independently seize a subsidiary were absent. What HYBE characterizes as preparation, Min’s side claimed to be non-operational discussion — speculative talk without the legal, financial, or procedural mechanisms necessary to effect a takeover.
This distinction matters because corporate disputes are not judged solely on intent or rhetoric, but on whether concrete steps were taken toward execution. Without investors, documentation, or actionable authority, Min’s camp argues that the alleged plan never crossed from thought into reality.
That is why her defense repeatedly emphasized absence of ownership power, absence of capital, absence of paperwork, and absence of execution.
What HYBE is really doing, she claimed, is enforcing discipline — “모난 돌 덜어내기,” sanding down a stone that sticks out too much
This isn’t about contracts at all — it’s about control.
Min’s side claim that in their telling, HYBE is not responding to an illegal takeover attempt, but reasserting authority over a label that refused to stay neatly in line.
From this view, Min wasn’t punished for what she did, but for how independently she operated. The lawsuits, the audits, and the mounting pressure was a warning — not just to her, but to any label head who forgets where the real power sits.
In other words, the story Min’s camp told was one of creative independence being punished.
HYBE Said The Attempt Materialized
From HYBE’s perspective, this case stopped being about “suspicions” long ago. They argue that intent moved into action:
contact with members, contact with parents, discussions around contract termination, and planning around separation from the parent company.
One of HYBE’s example involved Davolink chairman Park Jung-kyu, who said he met Min twice in September 2023 after being introduced through a personal connection. Park claimed Min discussed outside investment and scenarios for separating from ADOR. No deal was reached, and Min denied any attempt to secure funding or remove NewJeans. Still, HYBE argues that the substance of those meetings mattered, not the outcome.
HYBE also cited a dinner in May 2024 with executives from Dunamu and Naver. Internal messages later showed Min reflecting that it could be mutually beneficial if a company like Dunamu acquired ADOR. Min described the dinner as incidental and denied making any proposal. HYBE viewed the follow-up discussion as evidence of intent.
Additional claims involved meetings with Japanese and other overseas investors in late 2024 and early 2025. HYBE said these meetings were held privately, without informing the parent company, and pointed to KakaoTalk messages and internal documents as context. Min responded that executives routinely meet outside parties and that no investments were sought or secured.
The Collapse of Trust
Most importantly, HYBE insists this is not a financial disagreement. The shareholder agreement, they say, is built on trust-based delegation of control. Once that trust collapses, the contract collapses with it. That is why, in their view, termination came first — and why the put option never validly attached.
The court is now left to decide where the line sits between:
- private expression vs actionable conduct
- creativity vs control
- trust as a feeling vs trust as a legal foundation
That ruling arrives February 12.
