After the ₩25.5 Billion Put Option Victory: Why the Court Directly Criticized HYBE's 'Media Play'

On February 20, 2026, the first-instance ruling obtained by Sports Kyunghyang sent shockwaves through the K-POP industry. The court did not simply order HYBE to pay ₩25.5 billion—it directly criticized the company's 'media play' itself.

TL;DR

• Ruling Summary: Seoul Central District Court orders HYBE to pay ₩22.5 billion to former CEO Min Hee-jin (Feb 12, 2026)
• Core Issue: Does Min Hee-jin's 'exploration of ADOR independence plan' constitute grounds for terminating the shareholder agreement?
• Court's Judgment: HYBE first publicized the conflict to the media simultaneously with launching an audit, which constitutes breach of trust
• Impact: HYBE appeals (Feb 20), Min Hee-jin side declares "focus on core business," contract negotiations with NewJeans remain unresolved
• Industry Significance: Court officially acknowledges the tension between K-POP major agencies' 'multi-label' strategy and creator autonomy

1. What Happened: The ₩25.5 Billion Put Option and the 'Media Play' Ruling

Two Core Points of the First-Instance Ruling

On February 12, 2026, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 31 (Presiding Judge Nam In-su) ruled as follows in the HYBE vs. Min Hee-jin shareholder agreement dispute:

1. Shareholder Agreement Termination Confirmation Lawsuit: Dismissed (HYBE loses)
2. Put Option Exercise Lawsuit: Accepted (Min Hee-jin wins, ₩22.5 billion + ₩1.7 billion and ₩1.4 billion to two former directors)

The court judged Min Hee-jin's 'exploration of ADOR independence plan' as "merely an abstract risk, not a serious breach of duty," declaring HYBE's July 2024 contract termination notice invalid.

Criticism of 'Media Play' in the Ruling

The ruling exclusively obtained by Sports Kyunghyang on February 20 contained even more important content:

"Min Hee-jin's complaint emails dated April 3 and 16, 2024, kept the conflict internal, but HYBE's exclusive article on April 22, 2024, brought that conflict fully to the surface."

"On April 22, 2024, HYBE launched an audit of ADOR, demanded Min Hee-jin's resignation as CEO, and initiated dismissal procedures. On the same day, an exclusive article titled 'HYBE Activates Emergency Audit Rights on NewJeans' Agency ADOR Management' was published."

The court pointed out that the audit launch and media coverage occurred on the same day, stating that HYBE first publicized the conflict through the media, which constitutes an act that damaged the trust relationship. Min Hee-jin's April 22 press conference was justified as "based on the right to rebuttal."

2. Why This Ruling Matters: Judicial Judgment on Corporate Communication Strategy

Court Judges Corporate 'Media Play'

This ruling goes beyond a simple contract dispute and is evaluated as the judiciary's first explicit judgment on how companies use the media in crisis situations.

• HYBE's Strategy: On April 22, 2024, simultaneously with launching the audit, publicized Min Hee-jin's alleged management takeover through an "exclusive article"
• Min Hee-jin's Response: Emergency press conference the same day to refute (claims of "slave contract," "NewJeans discrimination," etc.)
• Court's Judgment: HYBE first disclosed the conflict, which constitutes breach of trust duty among shareholders

Legal circles evaluated this as "unprecedented for a media strategy itself to be judged as breach of trust in a corporate dispute." In particular, explicitly stating the timing of the "exclusive article" in the ruling suggests the court's judgment that HYBE intentionally utilized the media.

Structural Tension in the K-POP Industry

This ruling revealed the structural contradiction inherent in K-POP major agencies' 'multi-label' strategy:

• Major Company Logic: Provide capital and infrastructure → Guarantee label autonomy → Compensation based on performance
• Creator Logic: Creative autonomy = Independent management rights → Performance is primarily due to creator contribution

Min Hee-jin claimed "NewJeans' success is thanks to my creative vision," while HYBE countered "it would have been impossible without HYBE infrastructure." The court acknowledged Min Hee-jin's contribution, ruling that "after NewJeans' success, ADOR should have responded to former CEO Min's demands for additional compensation."

3. Who's Involved: HYBE, Min Hee-jin, NewJeans, and the Entire K-POP Industry

Key Stakeholders

NewJeans' Choice

The most watched issue after the ruling is NewJeans' future direction. The members publicly expressed support for Min Hee-jin during the 2024 dispute, and are reportedly still in contract negotiations with her.

• Scenario 1: Transfer to OK Records with Min Hee-jin → Complete separation from ADOR/HYBE
• Scenario 2: Remain with ADOR, Min Hee-jin participates as external creative director
• Scenario 3: Move to another label under HYBE

The industry predicts "NewJeans' choice will set a precedent for future K-POP artist-agency relationships."

4. How Long Will This Last: Appeals, Supreme Court, and Industry-Wide Changes

Legal Outlook: Round 2 Begins

HYBE filed an appeal on February 20, stating "reconsideration of legal issues is necessary." The main issues are:

1. Interpretation of Non-Compete Clause: Does Min Hee-jin's 'exploration of independence plan' constitute contract breach?
2. Timing of Put Option Exercise: Was the November 2024 exercise valid?
3. Legitimacy of Media Response: Was HYBE's April 22 coverage a breach of trust?

Legal circles predict "because the first-instance ruling was based on very specific evidence (KakaoTalk conversation records, timing of coverage, etc.), it will be difficult to overturn in the second instance."

Industry Impact: Reevaluation of the 'Multi-Label' Model

This ruling poses the following questions to the entire K-POP industry:

• Creator Autonomy: How far should it be guaranteed?
• Shareholder Agreements: Are put option pricing criteria reasonable?
• Non-Compete Clauses: Do they excessively restrict creators' mobility rights?
• Media Response Strategy: Is it legitimate to publicize internal disputes to the media?

In particular, since other major agencies—SM Entertainment (Lee Soo-man dispute), JYP (Park Jin-young role reduction), YG (Yang Hyun-suk resignation)—have experienced similar conflicts, this ruling is expected to impact industry standard contracts.

5. Watch Out For: Misinformation, Investment Overheating, Privacy

⚠️ Risk Checklist

• Misinformation Risk: Both sides tend to announce only favorable content → Must verify full ruling text
• Investment Overheating: HYBE stock price slightly declined (about 2%) immediately after ruling then recovered; beware short-term volatility
• Privacy: Increase in indiscriminate speculative reporting about Min Hee-jin and NewJeans members
• Fandom Division: Escalating conflict between HYBE's other artist fandoms and NewJeans fandom

Secondary Issue: US Lawsuit and 'Smear Campaign' Allegations

Separately from the ruling, in December 2025, Min Hee-jin filed a lawsuit in US federal court, claiming that a PR company acquired by HYBE America conducted a "systematic online smear campaign" against her. While HYBE completely denies this, there are suggestions that this case could influence the second-instance trial.

References

1. Sports Kyunghyang Exclusive: "Court Deliberately Criticizes HYBE for Betraying Min Hee-jin First Through Media Play"
2. The Korea Law Times: Court Rules "HYBE Must Pay ₩22.5 Billion to Min Hee-jin"
3. Forbes: Former NewJeans EP Min Hee Jin Wins $18 Million Court Battle Against HYBE
4. Korea Times: Legal Victory Opens New Chapter for Min Hee-jin
5. Namuwiki: Min Hee-jin-HYBE ADOR Management Dispute

Image Source

1. Seoul Central District Court - Wikimedia Commons (Link)