On February 12, 2026, the Seoul Central District Court handed down a highly anticipated verdict in the ongoing legal saga between Min Hee-jin, the former CEO of Adore, and entertainment giant HYBE. The court’s decision, which ordered HYBE to pay Min approximately 25.5 billion KRW (about $19 million USD) for exercising her put option on Adore shares, marked a decisive moment in a dispute that has gripped the K-pop industry and sparked debate over the balance of power between creative leaders and corporate oversight.
The roots of the conflict stretch back to April 2024, when tensions between Min Hee-jin and HYBE erupted over allegations of management rights abuses and perceived discrimination against the breakout girl group NewJeans. According to News1, HYBE accused Min of orchestrating an attempt to take NewJeans away from Adore and the parent company—an allegation that would become central to the legal showdown. HYBE claimed that these actions constituted a serious breach of their shareholder agreement, and in July 2024, the company notified Min of the contract’s termination, arguing that her rights to exercise a put option were therefore void.
Min Hee-jin, however, did not back down. As reported by YTN, she maintained that the contract remained valid in November 2024 when she formally notified HYBE of her intent to exercise the put option. This would entitle her to sell her Adore shares back to HYBE for a sum calculated based on the company’s recent operating profits—a figure that ultimately reached the headline-making 25.5 billion KRW.
The legal battle quickly escalated, with HYBE filing a lawsuit to confirm the termination of the shareholder agreement and Min countersuing for payment under the put option. The court decided to hear both cases in parallel, recognizing that the outcome of one would directly influence the other.
Throughout the proceedings, the court examined a slew of allegations and counter-allegations. Among the most sensational was HYBE’s claim that Min had tried to orchestrate a “NewJeans poaching” scheme. The company cited KakaoTalk messages and meetings with external investors as evidence that Min sought to make Adore independent from HYBE—potentially taking NewJeans with her. Min, for her part, consistently denied these charges, even appearing in court three times to testify and refute the tampering and takeover accusations.
According to edaily, the court acknowledged that Min had explored independent control of Adore and met with outside investors. However, the judges found that these discussions always assumed HYBE’s consent as a prerequisite. The court ruled, “Min Hee-jin’s actions may be seen as seeking ways to weaken HYBE’s control and explore independent governance for Adore, but these circumstances alone do not constitute a serious breach of the shareholder agreement.”
The court also addressed the “NewJeans poaching” narrative directly. While it accepted the evidentiary value of the KakaoTalk conversations, it found insufficient proof to conclude that Min had actively tried to take the group away from HYBE. The judges noted, “There is a lack of evidence to definitively state that Min Hee-jin attempted to leave with the NewJeans members.” In particular, Min’s much-scrutinized message—“If I leave, Adore will be an empty shell”—was interpreted by the court as a comment on the impact of her put option, not a threat to take NewJeans elsewhere.
Another major point of contention involved Min’s public allegations that Ailead, another HYBE subsidiary girl group, had copied NewJeans in areas ranging from hair and makeup to choreography and event appearances. While the court did not rule on whether plagiarism had occurred, it recognized that some similarities existed and that Min’s concerns were not baseless. As Sports Seoul reported, the court found that raising the issue was within the scope of Min’s business judgment as CEO and did not amount to a serious breach of contract. The judges stated, “Raising the issue of similarity with Ailead was a management decision to protect NewJeans’ value and cannot be considered a serious contractual violation.”
HYBE also argued that Min’s actions, including her public statements and preparations for legal action, damaged the company’s interests and justified contract termination. However, the court was unmoved. It found, as ZDNet Korea noted, that Min’s actions were either expressions of opinion or value judgments—not false statements or malicious attacks. The judges concluded, “There is no evidence that Min Hee-jin’s allegations were false or malicious. Her conduct did not hinder Adore’s growth or cause losses.”
In the end, the court dismissed HYBE’s lawsuit to confirm termination of the shareholder agreement and sided with Min on the put option payment. The verdict ordered HYBE to pay not only Min but also two of her former Adore colleagues—1.7 billion KRW to Shin and 1.4 billion KRW to Kim—reflecting the broader implications for executive compensation and shareholder rights within the K-pop industry.
HYBE, unsurprisingly, expressed disappointment with the outcome. The company issued a statement saying, “We regret that our arguments were not fully accepted and will review the judgment before proceeding with an appeal.” Both sides now brace for a likely second round in the appeals court, ensuring that the legal drama is far from over.
The case has become a touchstone for the evolving relationship between major entertainment conglomerates and the creative leaders who drive their success. With the court’s decision, Min Hee-jin not only secured a substantial payout but also set a precedent for how disputes over creative control, business judgment, and contractual obligations might be navigated in the future. For the fans, artists, and executives watching closely, the story is a vivid reminder that behind the glitz and glamour of K-pop, the business stakes—and the personal passions—run deep.
As both camps prepare for the next legal chapter, the industry will be watching to see whether this verdict signals a new era of balance between artistic vision and corporate power—or simply the latest twist in a never-ending battle for control.