The protracted conflict between HYBE, a leading K-pop entertainment company, and its subsidiary ADOR's CEO, Min Hee-jin, has captured widespread attention both within and outside the industry. This dispute, which first surfaced in April 2024, has evolved into a complex situation that goes beyond a mere internal corporate issue, raising fundamental questions about the limitations of the multi-label system, artists' intellectual property rights, and creators' rights within the K-pop industry. The recent first-instance court ruling on February 12, 2026, concerning Min Hee-jin's exercise of her 'put option' marked a significant turning point. This article offers an in-depth analysis of the main causes and contentious issues of the Min Hee-jin-HYBE conflict, the implications of the recent court decision, and forecasts its potential repercussions on the K-pop industry.
The embers of the Min Hee-jin-HYBE conflict ignited in April 2024 when HYBE detected signs of an attempted management takeover by ADOR's executives and initiated an internal audit. HYBE alleged that Min Hee-jin and other ADOR executives were attempting to achieve independence by leaking internal company information and terminating NewJeans' exclusive contracts. Min Hee-jin immediately refuted these claims, asserting that HYBE initiated a retaliatory audit after she raised concerns about HYBE's new girl group, ILLIT, allegedly imitating NewJeans' concept. As both sides presented sharply conflicting narratives, the dispute escalated beyond an internal disagreement into a public relations battle, captivating not only K-pop fandoms but also the general public.
One of the core contentious points of the dispute was the alleged plagiarism of NewJeans' concept. Min Hee-jin contended that ILLIT's concept was a copy of NewJeans' creative direction and concept, strongly criticizing it as an act that undermined NewJeans' value. However, the court ruled that while some similarities might exist, it was difficult to conclude that the concepts were directly copied, and that girl group concepts do not typically fall under trademark or intellectual property rights within exclusive contracts. Concurrently, HYBE accused Min Hee-jin of 'tampering' by attempting to poach NewJeans members. Min Hee-jin's side countered that it was an attempt by a specific corporate figure and NewJeans members' families to manipulate the stock market, and that HYBE's management was aware of this. The court also found insufficient evidence to conclude that Min Hee-jin intended to take the NewJeans members with her.
Min Hee-jin argued that HYBE used her as a 'scapegoat' for their IPO and subjected her to unfair treatment, including hindering NewJeans' promotions. She particularly criticized the 'non-compete clause' in the shareholders' agreement, which she claims she only discovered later, likening it to a 'slave contract.' She explained that her demand for the put option (share purchase right) worth approximately 26 billion KRW was a justified demand for compensation against HYBE's deception and obstruction. A put option is the right for a shareholder to sell their shares at a specified price. In this case, it was Min Hee-jin's right to sell 75% of her 18% stake in ADOR back to HYBE, potentially receiving around 26 billion KRW.
The Min Hee-jin-HYBE conflict ultimately led to a legal battle. HYBE filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of contract termination, arguing that Min Hee-jin's material breach of the shareholders' agreement nullified her put option rights. Conversely, Min Hee-jin argued that the contract was valid at the time of exercising the put option and that HYBE did not have the unilateral right to terminate it. On February 12, 2026, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of Min Hee-jin in the first instance, ordering HYBE to pay approximately 22.5 billion KRW (some sources cite 25.5 billion KRW) as the put option payment. The court acknowledged that Min Hee-jin explored ways to independently control ADOR but deemed it a conceptual plan contingent on HYBE's consent and not a material breach of contract. This signifies that HYBE's stance regarding Min Hee-jin's alleged attempt to seize management control was not fully upheld by the court.
This ruling is expected to set a significant precedent for the operation of multi-label systems and the protection of creators' rights in the K-pop entertainment industry. HYBE, as experienced during the SM Entertainment acquisition bid, is once again confronting the challenge of balancing the autonomy of independent labels within a large agency with the parent company's control. Min Hee-jin has already announced her new beginning by establishing 'OK Records,' and while NewJeans members are expected to return to ADOR, uncertainties remain regarding their future activities. This incident strongly suggests the need for the K-pop industry to respect creators' originality and seek mutually beneficial solutions through reasonable contractual relationships to ensure continued growth in the global market.
The Min Hee-jin-HYBE conflict serves as a clear example of the growing pains faced by the K-pop industry. This dispute, arising from the complex interplay of creators' visions, corporate profit motives, and the protection of artists' activities, has spurred in-depth discussions on entertainment industry contract practices, the definition of intellectual property, and the establishment of healthy multi-label systems. While the court's ruling provides one conclusion, ultimately, all stakeholders must collaboratively seek wise solutions for the sustainable development of K-pop based on mutual respect and trust. Through this process, K-pop can mature into a more robust and resilient industry.
Q1: What were the main points of contention in the Min Hee-jin-HYBE conflict?
A1: The main points of contention were broadly threefold: first, the allegation of Min Hee-jin's attempt to seize management control of ADOR; second, the controversy over the plagiarism of NewJeans' concept and related intellectual property issues; and third, the validity of Min Hee-jin's put option exercise and whether it constituted a breach of the shareholders' agreement.
Q2: What was the recent court ruling, and did Min Hee-jin win?
A2: In the first-instance ruling on February 12, 2026, the court ruled in favor of Min Hee-jin, ordering HYBE to pay her approximately 22.5 to 25.5 billion KRW in put option payments. The court acknowledged Min Hee-jin's exploration of independent control over ADOR but did not consider it a material breach of contract.
Q3: What is the potential impact of this conflict on the K-pop industry?
A3: This conflict has set an important precedent for the operation of multi-label systems and the protection of creators' rights. It is expected to serve as an opportunity for entertainment companies to establish more cautious and clear standards regarding contractual relationships with independent labels, intellectual property protection, and the guarantee of creative autonomy in the future.
Q4: What changes have occurred in the activities of the NewJeans members?
A4: Following Min Hee-jin's dismissal, the NewJeans members returned to ADOR. However, ADOR has filed a lawsuit seeking 43.1 billion KRW in damages against Min Hee-jin and some NewJeans members regarding an alleged attempt to terminate their exclusive contracts. Meanwhile, Min Hee-jin has established 'OK Records,' leading to a complex situation where each party is pursuing their own path.
0