Min Hee-jin, former CEO of Adore / News 1
The Seoul Central District Court sided with former CEO Min's claim in the legal dispute related to the shareholder agreement between Hive and former CEO Min Hee-jin. The reason for Hive's contract termination, 'attempt to seize management rights', was not recognized, and Hive must pay 25.6 billion won to former CEO Min.
The 31st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by Hive against former CEO Min to confirm the termination of the contract between shareholders, and in the stock purchase lawsuit filed by former CEO Min against Hive, Hive paid approximately 22.5 billion won to former CEO Min. It ruled that Adore should pay 1.7 billion won and 1.4 billion won, respectively, to former directors.
This lawsuit began in April 2024 when Hive began an audit on the grounds that former CEO Min attempted to take away management rights. Hive accused him of breach of trust because he tried to make Adore independent of Hive by contacting external investors, and former CEO Min countered that Hive was attempting to remove him in retaliation.
The focus of the dispute was on the put option specified in the shareholder agreement between Hive and former CEO Min. Former CEO Min announced that he would exercise his right to sell his shares to Hive when he resigned from his position as an internal director, and Hive has refused to pay the money, considering his attempt to seize management rights as a violation of the contract. However, the court judged that the reasons for terminating the contract were insufficient and ordered Hive to pay the price.
The main issue in this ruling was whether former CEO Min's search for Adore's independence was a violation of the contract. The court ruled that although it is true that he considered independence in KakaoTalk messages, etc., this was only a plan in case negotiations with Hive broke down and had no actual possibility of implementation. It was concluded that there was no clear evidence regarding the suspicion of ‘taking away New Genes’ raised by Hive.
Hive took issue with former CEO Min’s statement, “If I leave, Adore will be an empty shell,” but the court interpreted that he was only referring to the decline in Adore’s value. Hive claimed that it was trying to take out New Genes, but the court ruled that this was irrelevant.
The court ruled that former CEO Min's suspicion of Aylet's plagiarism from New Genes or the revelation of Hive's push for albums was not a breach of contract. It was evaluated that the suspicion of plagiarism was nothing more than an expression of personal opinion, and that the revelation of album pushing was a real event, contributing to the establishment of an order in the distribution of albums. This was considered a fair business judgment.
The court found that the reasons for termination claimed by Hive were nothing more than abstract or minor ancillary liabilities, and that former CEO Min's losses due to termination of the contract were greater.