Court Ruling Details and Key Judgment
The 31st Civil Division of Seoul Central District Court dismissed HIVE's lawsuit seeking to terminate the shareholder agreement and accepted former CEO Min Hee-jin's claims. Through this ruling, the court ordered HIVE to pay approximately 25.5 billion won in stock purchase fees and recognized that Min legitimately exercised her put option rights.
The most important legal principle emphasized by the court was the need for strict interpretation of shareholder agreements involving financial interests. While the court acknowledged HIVE's authority as a major shareholder to dismiss executives, it firmly stated that terminating a shareholder agreement requires clear proof of specific and serious violations such as embezzlement or breach of trust exceeding 1 billion won. The court determined that a shareholder agreement cannot be terminated based solely on business conflicts or damaged trust relationships.
Why HIVE's Trust Breach Claims Were Not Accepted as Grounds for Termination
During litigation, HIVE presented breach of trust by former CEO Min Hee-jin as its primary argument. However, the court determined that such claims did not provide sufficient legal grounds for contract termination. The court viewed the breakdown of trust as a naturally occurring phenomenon during business conflicts and concluded that this alone could not be considered a concrete violation.
This ruling has set an important precedent in major shareholder disputes within companies. The court clarified that in financial contractual relationships like shareholder agreements, objective violations are more important judgment criteria than emotional or subjective trust issues. This ruling is expected to strengthen contract stability in similar corporate disputes going forward.
ILLIT Plagiarism Controversy and Recognition as Legitimate Concerns
One notable aspect of this ruling is the court's acknowledgment of similarities between ILLIT's concept and NewJeans. Based on internal reports, the court explicitly recognized that ILLIT's performance and concept shortly after debut were substantially similar to NewJeans. The court noted that Belif Lab failed to present sufficient evidence to refute this.
The court evaluated former CEO Min Hee-jin's allegations of copying and sidelining raised through press conferences and official statements as legitimate concerns. Although HIVE attempted to characterize them as breach of duty or embezzlement, the court viewed them as legitimate exercise of defensive rights in situations of shareholder conflict. A petition submitted by NewJeans members' parents was also accepted as a reasonable opinion on similarities rather than a mere misunderstanding.
Ultimately, the court concluded that HIVE's decline in market capitalization was not due to Min Hee-jin's allegations, but rather the market's reaction to internal conflicts being exposed externally, combined with value loss following her departure.
ADOR Independence Attempt and Acquittal of Betrayal Accusations
During litigation, HIVE strongly argued the 'betrayal' frame that former CEO Min Hee-jin attempted to hollow out the organization to gain independent control of ADOR. The court acknowledged that Min sought ways to independently control ADOR and planned for her departure in case negotiations fell through.
However, the court made an important legal distinction. The court viewed such actions not as actual contract violations being 'executed,' but as 'plans' of a defensive nature against HIVE's attempts at low-price acquisition. The court actually detected HIVE's intent to acquire Min's shares at a low price in the put option scenario and determined this as the cause that led Min to pursue independence.
The court considered that ADOR's value approached 2 trillion won and NewJeans had achieved growth comparable to BLACKPINK. Under such circumstances, the court determined that Min had no motive to intentionally damage the company while forgoing a substantial sum of 25.5 billion won. Therefore, Min's mentions of 'creating male NewJeans' or pursuing independence were merely scenarios in preparation for cases where HIVE failed to provide appropriate compensation, and did not actually constitute breach of trust.
Significance of the Ruling and Future Impact
This ruling is evaluated as a complete victory for former CEO Min Hee-jin, relieving her of substantial litigation costs while securing financial gains. Most importantly, this ruling has established new legal principles in shareholder disputes within the entertainment industry.
The court clarified that even if the possibility exists of a key figure's departure from a company, this is not immediately considered breach of trust or contract violation, and responsibility can only be held for actual harmful acts. Additionally, the legal principle that shareholder agreements involving financial interests cannot be terminated based solely on trust relationships is expected to become an important judgment standard in similar disputes going forward.
This content is general information compiled based on publicly available materials. Please confirm accurate details through official announcements from relevant organizations.
