Min Hee-jin, then-CEO of K-pop label Ador, holds a press conference in Jung Distirct, Seoul in this May 31, 2024, file photo. Korea Times file

A Seoul court’s ruling ordering K-pop conglomerate HYBE Labels to pay former Ador CEO Min Hee-jin about 25.5 billion won ($17.5 million) in a put option dispute has begun reshaping the next phase of one of K-pop’s biggest corporate battles.

While the Feb. 12 decision clarified key legal questions surrounding Min’s shareholder agreement and creative autonomy, it also left a complex web of appeals, ongoing lawsuits and artist negotiations unresolved, placing renewed focus on how Min, HYBE and girl group NewJeans will navigate the months ahead.

The central question in the case was whether Min had committed a substantial breach of her shareholder agreement with HYBE that would allow the company to terminate the contract and block her put option.

HYBE argued that Min’s conduct, including efforts to pursue independence for sub-label Ador and her public remarks tied to internal disputes, amounted to a “serious violation” that destroyed mutual trust. Min countered that her put option was valid under the contract terms and that her actions did not meet the legal threshold required to terminate the agreement.

The Seoul Central District Court ruled in Min’s favor, saying her put option was valid and ordering HYBE to pay the 25.5 billion won. The court said that although Min did discuss ways to pursue Ador’s independence, those conversations did not amount to illegal attempts to seize control of the label.

In the same ruling, the court rejected HYBE’s attempt to terminate the shareholder agreement and upheld put option claims from other former Ador executives.

K-pop girl groups NewJeans, top, and ILLIT / Courtesy of Ador, Belift Lab

While reviewing whether Min’s public criticism constituted a contractual violation, judges also examined her claims about similarities between NewJeans, the girl group Min helped create, and rookie group ILLIT from another HYBE affiliate, Belift Lab. While the court noted that the alleged similarities did not rise to the level of plagiarism, it concluded that raising such concerns is a legitimate expression of a producer’s opinion rather than a breach of contract.

“What this ruling does is separate corporate control from a producer’s ability to speak up on creative issues,” said a public relations company executive, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It suggests the court recognized that artistic judgment needs space to exist in K-pop, even within large corporate structures.”

Source: Korea Times News