Min Hee Jin’s legal team has strongly refuted HYBE’s position on the lawsuit to terminate her shareholder contract. They asserted that HYBE has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the termination. According to Min’s side, the burden of proof lies with HYBE, and they must prove that the termination notice was valid.
On April 17, her legal representative, Sejong Law LLC, released a statement to announce their position after the court hearing.
Hello.
This is Sejong Law LLC, legal representative of Min Hee Jin.
This statement concerns the civil case 2024Gahap80024 (Plaintiff: HYBE, Defendants: Min Hee-jin and one other), regarding the confirmation of termination of the shareholder agreement, currently being heard at the Seoul Central District Court.
Min Hee Jin’s legal representatives have already submitted two written statements rebutting the unjust grounds for termination claimed by HYBE.
On the contrary, HYBE has failed to respond to the points raised by Min Hee Jin’s side, including the illegality of the termination notice.
Despite the hearing date (April 17) being less than a week away, HYBE submitted three additional written statements on April 11, April 14, and April 15. We naturally plan to submit a rebuttal to these as well.
It must be emphasized that the burden of proof in this lawsuit lies with HYBE. That is, it is HYBE’s responsibility to prove that the shareholder agreement was lawfully terminated by their notice of termination.
HYBE has argued that it can only submit detailed evidentiary documents after Min Hee Jin responds to their claims. However, this goes against the fundamental principles of burden of proof in civil litigation. HYBE should be fully aware that it bears the burden of proof regardless of whether Min Hee Jin responds or not.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sejong Law LLC
Sejeong Law LLC
The Seoul Central District Court’s 31st Civil Agreement Division held a second oral argument for the lawsuit filed by HYBE against Min Hee Jin and others to confirm the termination of their shareholder agreement. They terminated the shareholder agreement, which would invalidate her put option worth approximately 26 billion KRW.
The former ADOR CEO’s legal team argues that HYBE has the burden of proof to confirm the termination’s validity, while HYBE tries to shift this responsibility to Min’s side. The court also decided to combine two lawsuits, shareholder agreement termination (filed by HYBE) and put option (filed by Min Hee Jin).
The dispute between HYBE and Min Hee Jin revolves around a put option worth approximately 26 billion KRW for Min’s 13.5% stake in ADOR. Min Hee Jin had exercised this option, but HYBE counters that the shareholder agreement was terminated before the exercise. The core issue lies in determining which party is responsible for the agreement’s termination, and the court’s decision will significantly impact both parties. The next hearing is scheduled for June 12.
