With allegations of contract breach, betrayal, and corporate control at stake, ruling on her battle with Hybe expected early next year
Former Ador CEO Min Hee-jin claimed Thursday that she had been “a sacrifice for Hybe’s stock market debut,” as her legal dispute with the K-pop powerhouse over a put option worth some 26 billion won ($17.7 million) continued at the Seoul Central District Court.
The court held the third hearing in two related suits in which Hybe, parent company of Ador, is seeking confirmation that its shareholder agreement with Min has been terminated and Min is demanding payment for exercising the put option.
Min argued that Hybe had used her “from the moment she joined the company,” claiming that Hybe chairman Bang Si-hyuk recruited her to boost corporate value and facilitate a successful initial public offering.
She said her reputation in the entertainment industry was leveraged to strengthen Hybe’s listing narrative, but after the IPO, the company allegedly obstructed her plans to establish an independent label and instead pressured her to join Source Music.
Hybe countered by emphasizing that Min “was not just a creator but the CEO of a subsidiary.” The company argued that the core issue is whether Min fulfilled her duties and responsibilities as an executive, not whether she appeals to emotion.
At the center of the trial are several key issues, including whether Min violated the noncompete clause in the shareholder agreement, whether her contact with external investors constituted an attempt to undermine corporate control, the validity of her put option claim, and the alleged leakage of internal planning documents.
Last November, Min notified Hybe of her intention to exercise the put option. Under the contract, she was entitled to receive an amount equivalent to 75 percent of her stake multiplied by 13 times Ador’s average operating profit for the previous two years — a sum estimated at roughly 26 billion won.
Hybe argues that her rights no longer exist because it terminated the shareholder agreement in July.
The dispute is not merely a monetary issue but a precedent-setting case for Hybe with wide implications for its future internal governance. Given the scale of the amount, the company sees the case as symbolically significant for the entire industry.
Min said her push to apply a “30-times multiplier,” rather than the initial 13, was driven by “a profound sense of betrayal, not greed.”
The former CEO said she discovered only later that the shareholder agreement contained a noncompete clause that effectively barred her from selling shares without Hybe’s approval and prohibited her from working in the same industry for life.
“When I realized it was essentially a lifelong slavery contract, I trembled with anger at the betrayal by the management, including former Hybe CEO Park Ji-won,” Min said. “Asking for ‘30 times’ was psychological compensation for the deception and the humiliation and obstruction I endured inside Hybe. It wasn’t about making money — it was about demanding accountability for the harm they caused me.”
Responding to Hybe’s argument that proposing “30 times” itself constituted a breach of contract, Min said: “I’m fine with receiving it at 13 times. I’m exhausted, but Hybe crossed the line, and that’s why I had to fight.”
Regarding Min’s meetings with outside investors, Hybe said the interactions suggested “efforts to seek an independent structure,” not ordinary business discussions. The controversial “Project 1945” document, which referenced a potential breakaway structure, fell under her management responsibility regardless of who drafted it, the company added.
Hybe argues that the matter goes beyond creative friction and concerns actions that could fundamentally alter the company’s shareholding structure, thereby violating contractual obligations and trust.
Min concluded by criticizing what she described as Hybe’s fixation on expansion through mergers and acquisitions.
“Chairman Bang focused on external expansion through M&A and investments rather than creative depth or internal stability,” she said. “I became disillusioned with a management philosophy that treats artists and employees as expendable accessories.”
“Hybe publicly promotes a multilabel system but in reality uses centralized control that suppresses creative autonomy,” she added.
The court will close arguments on Dec. 18 and is expected to deliver a ruling early next year.
jaaykim@heraldcorp.com
