Why Did The Court Side With Min Hee Jin? Legitimate "Plagiarism And Discrimination" Concerns

The recent court decision in favor of Min Hee Jin has significantly altered the trajectory of her dispute with HYBE. The court decided to allow Min to maintain her position as CEO of ADOR and ruled against HYBE’s attempt to dismiss her. Here’s a closer look at all the evidence.

First, the court found HYBE’s claims of Min Hee Jin’s misconduct insufficiently substantiated. HYBE had argued that Min’s actions amounted to a breach of duty and other dismissal-worthy offenses. However, the court concluded that the evidence presented by HYBE did not convincingly demonstrate grounds for her removal.

The court also addressed Min Hee Jin’s discontent with the shareholder agreement and her attempts to renegotiate it. It was acknowledged that since late 2023, Min sought changes to this agreement and explored ways to lessen HYBE’s control over ADOR, possibly to gain more independence for herself and NewJeans. Despite these actions, the court found no concrete evidence that Min moved beyond the planning stage to implement these ideas. While her actions could be seen as disloyal to HYBE, they did not amount to a breach of duty or illegal activities that harmed ADOR.

Min Hee Jin’s own allegations against HYBE were also considered. She claimed that HYBE discriminated against NewJeans pushed their albums unfairly, and failed to address ILLIT‘s alleged plagiarism of NewJeans. The court acknowledged public opinions on the similarities between ILLIT and NewJeans and noted that Min had a duty to protect NewJeans’ interests. Thus, according to the court, Min Hee Jin’s actions to raise these issues were legitimate and had grounds.

Attorney Noh Jong Eon explained that Min Hee Jin’s efforts to protect NewJeans from alleged plagiarism and discrimination were seen as fulfilling her contractual obligations.

The court viewed Min Hee Jin’s claims of ILLIT plagiarizing NewJeans as fulfilling her obligation to protect the core value of NewJeans under their exclusive contract.

— Attorney Noh Jong Eon

Neglecting these issues could have led to breaches of duty and grounds for dismissal. Thus, the court did not view these claims as enough reason for her removal.

Considering the issues Min Hee Jin raised about HYBE’s discrimination against NewJeans and sales manipulation problems, it is difficult to assert that these claims are entirely baseless. Therefore, it is also hard to conclude that Min acted intentionally or with gross negligence to harm ADOR or HYBE or seriously violated any obligations.

— The Court via Kyunghyang

The court also dismissed HYBE’s accusations that Min Hee Jin leaked ADOR’s trade secrets, finding no substantial evidence that such information, including KakaoTalk conversations, constituted trade secrets or caused financial harm to ADOR.