On December 4, former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin appeared on the YouTube political commentary channel 〈장르만 연예도 / Jangreumman Yeouido〉 for a live, unedited interview.
Over the course of the broadcast, she addressed her ongoing put-option lawsuit against HYBE, denied allegations of tampering and breach of trust, criticized HYBE’s handling of NewJeans’ return, and defended her new company, OOAK.
The following is a structured breakdown of each major claim she made during the interview, followed immediately by a fact-check using court documents, police findings, and Korean business reports.
1. “I MADE THE MOST MONEY FOR HYBE.”
CLAIM
Min said ADOR—and therefore she herself—generated more revenue for HYBE than any other label.
FACT CHECK
HYBE’s published statements show:
- Big Hit Music (BTS/TXT): ~552 billion KRW (~$425 million USD)
- Pledis Entertainment (SEVENTEEN): ~327 billion KRW (~$252 million USD)
- ADOR (NewJeans): ~110 billion KRW (~$85 million USD)
ADOR ranked third, not first. Even when comparing single-artist performance, ENHYPEN (BELIFT) generated more revenue than NewJeans in 2024.
Further, in 2023, ADOR had 11B KRW in inventory, including 8B KRW in unsold albums (reportedly 1.6M units). Writing this off as a loss would significantly reduce their 33B KRW operating profit. They appear to have been inflating sales projections/overordering albums to boost revenue.
Min Heejin has also left a trail of misinformation.
On September 25, 2024, Seoul Shinmun (also known as Seoul Newspaper) reporter Jang Hyung-woo accused HYBE of attempting to “downplay” NewJeans’ success in Japan by requesting revisions to his July 17, 2024, article about the group’s Tokyo Dome fan meeting (Bunnies Camp)
Jang’s article claimed NewJeans’ Japanese debut album Supernatural (released June 2024) sold over 1.02 million copies “in Japan alone.” HYBE said it’s only 100,000 and 1.02 million was global sales.
Min Heejin never confirmed the sales figure despite being the then CEO, allowing the “HYBE DOWNLPLAYING NEW JEANS’S ACHIEVEMENTS” to persist.
Further, Hanni, a member of New Jeans repeated this narrative in the National Assembly to talk about the alleged mistreatment they experienced in HYBE. Min prepared Hanni for this.
Min’s creative role is significant, but the claim that she was HYBE’s top revenue driver is factually unsubstantiated.
2. THE PUT-OPTION LAWSUIT
CLAIM
Min said she informed HYBE in November 2024 of her intention to exercise the put option and believes she is owed roughly 26 billion KRW (~$20 million USD), based on ADOR’s 2022–2023 operating performance. She added that the put option replaced stock options she says were initially promised.
She framed the dispute as an attempt by HYBE to avoid paying her what she rightfully earned, arguing she never violated the shareholder agreement and that the “breach of trust” accusation is a narrative designed to weaken her claims.
FACT CHECK
The validity of the put option is being heard by the court. HYBE owing her $20 million is her claim. HYBE is on the opposite side.
HYBE argues the agreement was terminated in July 2024 after discovering internal documents—such as “Project 1945”—indicating attempts to secure ADOR’s management rights.
Min also violated the confidentiality clause. During a November 28, 2025, hearing in the Seoul Central District Court (5th hearing on the shareholders’ agreement termination), HYBE’s legal team (from Kim & Chang) presented evidence that Min Hee-jin emailed the confidential shareholders’ agreement to a third party, identified as “Mr. Seo ○○” (likely Seo Jeong-tae, a former colleague or advisor). This individual reportedly introduced another person (Lee Sang-woo, who later joined ADOR) to Min, and the agreement was also shared with him prior to his employment.
Min didn’t deny showing the agreement to outsiders but stated she was unaware this action breached the contract. She did claim she informed then CEO of HYBE Park Jiwon.
Min Hee-jin’s claim that “I didn’t know it was a breach” will almost certainly not absolve her of legal responsibility under South Korean law or the shareholders’ agreement.
According to the South Korean Civil Act, Article 660(3), a party who signs a contract is presumed to know and accept all of its terms, even if they did not actually read or understand them.
The claim that she informed former HYBE CEO Park Ji-won about the potential disclosure will not automatically make her “safe” from liability for breaching the shareholders’ agreement. While her testimony introduces an element of “precautionary notice,” it falls short of fulfilling the contract’s strict requirements for authorization. Under South Korean law, informal notifications like this do not equate to formal consent, especially in a sophisticated commercial agreement like this one.
According to the South Korean Civil Act & Contract Law Article 660(1)–(2), contractual consent must be explicit and in writing for modifications/waivers. The shareholders’ agreement (likely Article 9 on confidentiality) requires prior written consent from HYBE for any disclosure to third parties. Min’s claimed “proactive information” to Park (verbal or casual, pre-2022) is not documented as approval—it’s at best a heads-up, not a waiver.
The dispute now hinges on whether the shareholder agreement was valid at the time of her put-option notice—something only the court can decide.
3. COMPENSATION: “I DON’T EARN MONEY FROM HYBE.”
CLAIM
In the interview, Min implied she was not adequately compensated and suggested she did not materially benefit from HYBE despite her contributions.
FACT CHECK
HYBE’s regulatory filings show she earned approximately 2.7 billion KRW (~$2.1 million USD) in 2024, making her the second-highest-paid figure in the entire Korean entertainment sector and the highest earning CEO in HYBE. This is despite other CEOs of other labels from high generating higher gross profit than her.
Her compensation exceeded or matched that of multiple founders and CEOs at the country’s top agencies.
4. TAMPERING & AUDIT CONTROVERSY
CLAIM
Min denied allegations of tampering or plotting a management takeover. She said the KakaoTalk messages and emails used by HYBE came from old conversations in 2019–2020, unrelated to ADOR, and were obtained and leaked illegally.
FACT CHECK
Police ruled HYBE’s access to her corporate email was legal and within employer authority.
The most critical documents used in the NewJeans contract lawsuit—such as “Project 1945,” “HYBE’s 7 Deadly Sins,” and investor communications—date from 2022–2024, not 2019.
While some early chats may have been personal and unrelated, her version omits the later documents that formed the basis of HYBE’s termination decision.
In fact, it was her who initially submitted redacted chat messages.
Between April – May of 2024, Min submitted early chats (e.g., with executives on ADOR independence) as part of her defense against HYBE’s “takeover plot” claims. Some described as “redacted” or contextually cropped to highlight HYBE’s alleged breaches (e.g., non-compete clauses).
HYBE leaked/reconstructed the chats to media (e.g., via YouTuber Lee Jin-ho on June 5, 2025), claiming originals show Min’s “media manipulation” plans (e.g., “Tarnish ILLIT/HYBE’s reputation”).
Min then accused HYBE of illegal leaks/alterations and filed a lawsuit. HYBE called Min’s versions “manipulated.” Police cleared HYBE of illegal acquisition in July 2025.
August 22, 2025 (Source Music Damages Suit, 3rd Hearing), Min objected to HYBE/Source Music’s chats as “unlawfully obtained” (citing Communications Secrets Protection Act). She requestsed non-disclosure or redaction of sensitive parts (e.g., personal remarks on artists).
Source Music submitted a full 20-minute PPT with unredacted chats (e.g., Min instructing staff on LE SSERAFIM/ILLIT issues). They claimed Min’s prior submissions omitted context showing her “defamation/obstruction.”
The court that heard the validity of New Jeans’s exclusive contract with ADOR, (Seoul Western District Court, Civil 12) accepted the kakaotalk messages as evidence, affirming it’s legality of its acquisition.
5. POLITICAL COERCION & WORKPLACE CULTURE
CLAIM
Min rejected accusations that she pressured employees politically or engaged in workplace bullying. She said all relevant messages pre-dated ADOR and that police already cleared her of wrongdoing.
FACT CHECK
The breach-of-trust allegation was initially closed but has since been reopened by prosecutors for reinvestigation.
The political-coercion messages were not prosecuted, but that does not mean they were disproven. Korean law requires high thresholds for criminal liability. A separate civil case resulted in a workplace-related fine (amount not publicly disclosed), indicating some aspects of the complaints were upheld.
It is therefore inaccurate to say authorities found “no wrongdoing.” The outcome is far more mixed.
6. MEDIA BIAS AND PUBLIC OPINION
CLAIM
FACT CHECK
There is no evidence of coordinated media control by HYBE.
While no formal study has been done to officially measure who got a “better” media coverage, both Min and HYBE got favorable and unfavorable coverage.
However, the court that heard the validity of New Jeans’s exclusive contract with ADOR, (Seoul Western District Court, Civil 12) determined that Min started the PR war in April, around 1,700 stories were released. The court stated that it was one of the reasons HYBE’s decision to audit ADOR is justified.
Even during the 5th court hearing of Min’s Put Option against HYBE, Min was publishing press releases in real-time. Min confirmed that it was being distributed by one of her employees.
Court reporters and legal correspondents have consistently published direct quotes and factual summaries from hearings.
Min’s frustration is understandable, but the assertion of systematic PR manipulation remains unverified.
7. NEWJEANS AND THEIR PARENTS
CLAIM
Min said HYBE created a “two versus three” narrative within NewJeans, portrayed her and the members as traitors, and should apologize after the court upheld ADOR’s exclusive contracts. She refused to confirm whether she contacted the members or parents, saying any answer would be twisted.
FACT CHECK
The court ruling did not order or imply an apology from HYBE; it solely confirmed that the exclusive contracts remain valid.
She also didn’t state why she thinks HYBE should apologize considering the court upheld the validity of the exclusive contract and rejected all the claims of New Jeans.
The “2 vs 3” framing emerged partly from the three members’ separate law-firm announcement, not exclusively from HYBE’s actions. While HYBE has refused to confirm, Korean media stated that the first two members whose return to ADOR was confirmed by ADOR first, Hyein and Haerin, started negotiating with ADOR immediately after the court decision.
The remaining three members, Minji, Hanni and Danielle, only met with ADOR a day before the deadline of the appeal expired. Korean Media further claimed that part of the emands of the three remaining members is the return of Min Heejin as CEO.
Many believe that this meant Haerin and Hyein blindsided the other three members, negotiating with HYBE without the other three.
The decision of the court states the contract is valid but didn’t state New Jeans members didn’t breach the contract.
Her affection for the members comes through clearly, but the legal interpretation she provides does not align with the ruling.
IT’S A WAIT AND SEE SITUATION
The interview expanded Min Hee-jin’s narrative but did not resolve the contradictions between her statements and the documentary record.
Her lawsuit for 26 billion KRW (~$20 million USD) will determine her financial exit from HYBE. The reinvestigation into breach of trust remains open. And the industry conversation around NewJeans continues to evolve with each new disclosure.
For now, Min is positioning herself for a long fight—both in court and in the public arena—while simultaneously laying the groundwork for her next move in the K-pop landscape.
