JOIN OUR WHATSAPP CHANNEL
HYBE vs Min Hee Jin: Court announces joint hearing of contract termination and 26 Billion KRW put option lawsuits
The court has decided to merge two HYBE vs. Min Hee Jin cases for a joint review to ensure a comprehensive examination. Read to know more.
HYBE LABELS, the parent company of NewJeans' ADOR and Min Hee Jin, the former CEO and internal director of the subsidiary, have been embroiled in a legal and public dispute since last year. On April 17, the case saw a significant development with a new verdict declaration by the court, as reported by K-media Star News. It pertained to conducting a joint review of two lawsuits— HYBE’s confirmation of termination of a shareholders’ agreement and Min Hee Jin’s put option lawsuit.
Although the two legal cases are related to each other, their hearings were supposed to be held separately, just like ADOR's injunction against NewJeans and their exclusive contract validity suits. The 31st Civil Affairs Department of the Seoul Central District Court held the second hearing for the confirmation of the termination of the shareholder contract filed by HYBE against Min Hee Jin on April 17 at 2:00 PM KST. During the trial, Judge Nam In Soo declared that the 26 billion KRW (about 18.3 million USD) put option case would be merged with the current one.
The shareholder agreement between Min Hee Jin and HYBE included a 5-year term as ADOR's CEO and internal director. A key provision was the put option, allowing Min Hee Jin to sell 13.5% of her 18% stake in ADOR to HYBE under certain conditions. Min Hee Jin, reportedly, exercised this option in November 2024, shortly after resigning as ADOR's director. However, according to HYBE, doing so was not legally permissible.
The agency claimed that the former ADOR CEO's contract with them was no longer valid and thus, the 26 billion KRW put option would also not be available for her to make use of. The legal case was filed by them to check the validity of the contract, as Min Hee Jin claimed that her contract with them was not terminated, making her eligible to sell her stakes to HYBE and claim payment of the amount.
Presenting their side, HYBE’s legal team stated, “While both sides are indeed claiming termination, the legal reasoning depends on who is at fault for the breach, which is the core issue we seek to confirm.
