[Magazine Kave=Park Sun-am Reporter] Behind the K-Pop scene, which was revered as the pinnacle of the global cultural industry, an unprecedented power struggle between a giant agency and its subsidiary creators is erupting with legal and cultural ruptures. On the surface, it appears to be a power struggle between HYBE and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin (currently CEO of OK Records), but at its core lies the structural contradictions of the multi-label system that has supported the K-Pop industry, the desire for control by giant capital, and the violence of transforming personal empathy into a legal weapon.
On February 12, 2026, the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 31 (Chief Judge Nam In-soo) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by former CEO Min Hee-jin against HYBE for a 25.5 billion won put option (stock purchase request), completely dismissing HYBE's claim of shareholder agreement termination. This ruling is not just about a large financial settlement; it is a sharp declaration from the judiciary dismantling how a giant agency processed the 'independent management judgment' and 'internal criticism' of a subsidiary CEO into a frame of 'management rights usurpation'.
However, this case escalated into an unusual situation where global superstar BTS member V (Kim Tae-hyung) expressed his discomfort, stating that he was "very embarrassed" about his personal KakaoTalk conversation being submitted as courtroom evidence without consent. In an effort to gain the upper hand in the legal battle, the tragedy of weaponizing private consolation and empathetic language as 'consent to the facts' forced global readers to confront Korea's unique high-context communication culture and the concepts of 'nunchi' and 'jeong'.
1. The 25.5 Billion Won Bill: The Reality of the 'Management Rights Usurpation' Frame Dismantled by the Judiciary
The dispute between HYBE and former CEO Min Hee-jin surfaced in April 2024 when HYBE reported Min for breach of trust and conducted a large-scale audit. HYBE's core narrative was that Min took the key IP NewJeans and attempted to make ADOR a 'hollow shell' by colluding with external investors to undermine HYBE's control, attempting a 'management rights usurpation'. Based on this, HYBE unilaterally notified the termination of the shareholder agreement in July 2024 and subsequently dismissed Min from her position as CEO of ADOR in August.
However, the first-instance court (Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 31, Chief Judge Nam In-soo) stood in stark contrast to HYBE's narrative. The court dismissed the lawsuit filed by HYBE to confirm the termination of the shareholder agreement and accepted Min's claim for the payment of 25.5 billion won for the stock sale due to the exercise of the put option. The judiciary meticulously refuted the 'betrayal' frame set by giant capital using objective contractual legal standards and the practical limitations of corporate governance.
Limitations of Governance and the Impossibility of Conspiracy
The court acknowledged the 'fact' that Min sought independent solutions for ADOR and contacted external investors through KakaoTalk conversations. However, it clearly drew the line on whether this constituted a 'serious breach of duty' sufficient to terminate the shareholder agreement. The core logic of the trial is based on ADOR's equity structure. HYBE is the absolute controlling shareholder, holding 80% of ADOR's shares. The court stated, "Even if Min Hee-jin attempted to bring in funds from outside to seek independence, the premise is that she must obtain the consent of the plaintiff (HYBE)." It ruled that "if HYBE does not consent, Min Hee-jin's independence plan has no effect whatsoever."
In other words, it is nearly impossible under corporate law for a subsidiary CEO with less than 20% equity to usurp the company without the parent company's knowledge, and their conversations were seen as expressions of impractical complaints or merely conceptual discussions aimed at negotiating with HYBE. The statement that HYBE presented as decisive evidence, "If I leave, ADOR will become a hollow shell," was interpreted not as a malicious plan to destroy the company by taking NewJeans away, but rather as a self-deprecating and exaggerated awareness of the situation that ADOR's corporate value would decline if Min left the company. This aligns precisely with the logic of the investigative agency (police) deciding not to prosecute Min's breach of trust case.
Recognition of Management Value Judgment and Legitimacy of Whistleblowing
Another major reason HYBE cited for the termination of the contract was that Min claimed that the rookie group 'ILLIT' under HYBE copied NewJeans and exposed suspicions of 'album pushing' (suspected distribution manipulation) within HYBE, damaging the company's reputation.
In response, the court set a very important precedent. Regarding the 'copying allegations of NewJeans by ILLIT', the court defined it not as simple defamation or dissemination of false facts but as "a simple expression of opinion or value judgment." In the cultural and artistic industry, raising issues of similarity in creative works belongs to the realm of overall impressions rather than specific factual assertions, and thus cannot be definitively categorized as a breach of contract.
Furthermore, regarding the allegations of 'album pushing', the court stated, "There are grounds to suspect that there was actual encouragement from HYBE for pushing," and viewed Min's issue-raising as falling within the legitimate scope of management judgment. This judicial intervention countered the authoritarian control methods of giant agencies that have historically treated subsidiary representatives' objections to opaque practices of the parent company or conflicts of interest with other labels as heretical.
2. The 25.5 Billion Won Put Option
The amount of 25.5 billion won ordered by the court to be paid starkly illustrates how much financial value Min's outstanding creative capabilities generated for ADOR. A put option refers to the right of a shareholder to request the company to buy back its shares at a predetermined price when certain conditions are met.
According to the shareholder agreement between HYBE and Min in March 2023, the basis for calculating the put option was based on the corporate value calculated by applying '13 times the average operating profit of ADOR for the previous two years', with HYBE purchasing 75% of the shares held by Min (18%, approximately 573,160 shares).
In 2022, the year NewJeans debuted, ADOR recorded an operating loss of about 4 billion won due to initial investment costs and activity period constraints. However, in the following year, 2023, NewJeans achieved a massive global hit, and ADOR suddenly achieved an operating profit of 33.5 billion won. The average operating profit for these two years (approximately 14.75 billion won) multiplied by 13, combined with Min's equity rights, resulted in the amount of approximately 25.5 billion won. When combined with the shares exercised by close associates, former Vice President Shin (1.7 billion won) and former Director Kim (1.4 billion won), the total cash outflow that HYBE would have to bear in the short term amounts to 28.6 billion won.
HYBE immediately filed an appeal against the first-instance ruling and requested a stay of enforcement. This is not only a blow due to the cash outflow of 25.5 billion won, but more fundamentally, it faces a 'structural risk' that the 'betrayer frame' set by HYBE could legally collapse, leaving a fatal precedent in future power relations with other subsidiary label creators. While HYBE laid the groundwork with capital, it was Min Hee-jin's planning ability that truly unleashed the substantial value, creating a dilemma where, at the moment HYBE pays the put option, it acknowledges its defeat by settling the value of the creator it had previously cast aside.
3. Weaponization of Private Conversations: The Fallout of the BTS V (Kim Tae-hyung) KakaoTalk Incident
This fierce legal battle between giant capital and genius creators led to an unexpected disaster, dragging a global superstar into the mud fight. During the process of the first-instance ruling being made public through the media, it was revealed that former CEO Min Hee-jin submitted private KakaoTalk conversations with BTS member V (Kim Tae-hyung) as evidence to the court to prove her legitimacy regarding the 'ILLIT's NewJeans copying allegations', and the court accepted this evidence.
According to reports, at the time, Min expressed her frustration to V regarding the plagiarism allegations against ILLIT, to which V replied, "(The plagiarism talk always comes up and has never not come up) Aww.. I know. I also thought, 'Oh, this is similar...'" The court deemed this conversation record as one of the grounds for determining that the copying issue of ILLIT was not just Min's personal insistence but a legitimate 'expression of opinion' shared among industry insiders (including one of the top authorities, V).
The Global Icon's "Embarrassment" and the Weaponization of Unconsented Private Life
Upon learning of this fact, the global fandom was thrown into chaos. V had built a musical trust with Min, having entrusted her with the overall production of his first solo album 'Layover' released in 2023. However, he could never have imagined that his private words of consolation and empathy would be used as sharp evidence against the parent company in court.
On February 20, V unusually captured and posted a related article on his Instagram story, expressing his feelings directly. He stated, "(Min Hee-jin) was a friend of mine, so it was a part of a private daily conversation I shared with empathy," and clearly drew the line, saying, "I have no intention of taking sides." He continued, "However, I find it very embarrassing that the conversation was submitted as evidence without my consent," expressing strong discomfort regarding the use of evidence without consent.
HYBE also quickly moved to clarify the situation. A HYBE representative stated, "V was merely expressing empathy in a private conversation with a friend (Min Hee-jin) and did not agree with any specific statements made by the other party," adding that it was confirmed that he wanted to express his dissatisfaction with the submission of private conversation content as court materials without consent. [User Query]
This incident showcases a bitter aspect of modern corporate litigation. In the face of the ultimate goal of winning, a personal word shared out of friendship and loyalty was ruthlessly turned into 'Evidence No. 1' within a legal frame stripped of all emotions and context. Regardless of V's intentions, his words were consumed as grounds for copyright disputes, resulting in a violent situation where a global artist had to clarify his position in the midst of a life-and-death battle between corporations against his will.
4. 'Empathy' and 'Agreement'
To properly understand this situation from a global perspective, it is necessary to explain to Western readers the unique high-context communication culture of Korea and the complex linguistic and social mechanisms of 'jeong' and 'nunchi'. In Western low-context culture, responding to a conversation partner's assertion with "Exactly" or saying, "Ah, this is similar" is considered a logical and rational 'agreement' with the other person's 'fact'. In other words, it implies that the speaker guarantees the objective truth of that proposition.
However, in the hierarchical and collectivist Korean society, the way of conversation operates quite differently. In Korea's high-context culture, language is not merely a tool for conveying information but serves as an emotional lubricant to reduce interpersonal friction and maintain a sense of solidarity.
The Sociolinguistics of 'Exactly': An Emotional Defense Mechanism Rather than Agreement
Let's linguistically dissect the KakaoTalk message V sent to Min.
"Aww..": This is an exclamation indicating a light sigh or resignation, meaning emotional sympathy for the frustrating situation the other person is experiencing.
"I know.": A dialectal and friendly variation of the standard expression "That's what I'm saying" or "Exactly"; in the Korean context, it is closer to 'emotional agreement' rather than a certificate that says, "Your statement is logically 100% correct." It means, "I understand why you feel that way and empathize with your frustration."
"I also thought, 'Oh, this is similar...'": This is a typical Korean conversational method that adds one's own experience to support the other person's grievance, increasing the density of consolation.
Underlying these linguistic acts is a psychology that seeks to avoid directly denying or refuting the other person's negative emotions (anger, injustice) to prevent damaging the relationship. In a situation where a friend, Min Hee-jin, is expressing extreme stress, V did not become a logical judge dissecting the choreography of ILLIT and NewJeans to determine whether plagiarism occurred. He simply provided an 'emotional sanctuary' by exercising the 'jeong' and 'nunchi' required in Korean culture, soothing the other person's wounded heart.
Recent academic studies on the social influence of Korean conversations also analyze that Korean speakers tend to momentarily grasp the social distance, hierarchy, and emotional state of the other person, choosing relationship-oriented 'over-empathizing' rather than excessively logical rebuttals. "Empathy is a socially regulated act, not just emotional expression."
'Jeong' Dragged into the Vacuum of the Court
The tragedy occurs when this thoroughly relationship-oriented and high-context private conversation is dragged out as cold courtroom evidence for 'winning', stripped of all emotions and context. The courtroom does not allow for the polysemy of words. There, a comforting word like "similar" immediately transforms into an 'expert's emotional opinion' acknowledging plagiarism.
HYBE's additional explanation, representing V's feelings, that "V was merely expressing empathy in a private conversation and did not 'agree'" is not just a media play. It is an effort to restore the Korean 'language of relationships' that has been butchered and distorted by judicial standards back to its original place, and a defense against the violence of personal empathy being transformed into a public weapon.
5. Is the Conclusion Massacre or Coexistence? The Structural Collapse of K-Pop Multi-Label and Future Prospects
After the first-instance ruling, the Korea Music Content Association (KOMCA), representing giant capital, issued an unusually strong statement of concern. KOMCA warned that the court viewed the act of breaking trust too narrowly and set excessively high standards for judgment, cautioning that this ruling could set a precedent justifying the so-called 'tampering' where artists and key executives, who grew on the back of massive upfront investments by agencies, unjustly seek independence. From the perspective of capital, even though talent (Min Hee-jin) was protected and nurtured under the umbrella of investment (HYBE), the act of denying the subject of investment and dreaming of departure after success poses a structural risk that could collapse the entire industrial ecosystem.
However, viewing this situation simply through the binary lens of 'betrayers trying to steal capital' and 'agencies trying to protect it' is the most misleading trap. The essential problem lies in the inherent contradictions of the 'multi-label system' that HYBE advocated. HYBE proclaimed that it would guarantee independence and autonomy for each label to produce diverse and creative IP. However, when that subsidiary (ADOR) criticized the governance of the parent company and pointed out copying issues with other labels (ILLIT of Belift Lab), the parent company defined it as 'betrayal' and 'management rights usurpation', attempting to ruthlessly expel the creator using the overwhelming 80% shareholding power and audit rights.
While proclaiming coexistence and building a multi-label system, the conclusion was a ruthless attempt at 'massacre' against a genius who does not conform to the parent company's control. The judiciary ruled that the justification for that 'massacre' (termination of the shareholder agreement and dismissal) claimed by HYBE was unjust. The court determined that it is not a serious crime to raise objections against the parent company and imagine independent business plans, thereby legally approving the minimum defense and voice rights of creators.
Nevertheless, the wounds left in the process of this victory are painfully deep. Former CEO Min Hee-jin achieved a financial victory of 25.5 billion won and legally dismantled HYBE's logic, but she had to engage in a desperate and brutal fight to the extent of having to exhibit the private 'empathy' of BTS V as evidence in court. V's feeling of 'embarrassment' vividly testifies to the harsh reality that, in the face of a lawsuit against giant capital, personal trust and everyday 'jeong' can be fragmented and weaponized at any moment.
HYBE has immediately appealed, and the dispute will move to the second instance. However, regardless of the outcome of the ruling, the K-Pop industry has already crossed a river of no return. As long as capital seeks to subordinate creators like factory parts, and creators must betray even personal trust for survival, the trust between the 'system' and 'creation' that made K-Pop's miraculous growth possible will be irreparably damaged. Just as only 7 out of a million small businesses graduate to become large corporations in Korea's tilted economic structure, independent labels under giant agencies will ultimately be captured by the massive gravitational pull of capital or torn apart. The 25.5 billion won ruling and V's bitter sigh expose the darkest and most violent structural reality of the seemingly glamorous K-Pop industry to the world.