On February 20, Sports Kyunghyang reported that it had obtained the first-instance ruling in the shareholder agreement case between HYBE and Min Hee Jin, noting that the KakaoTalk conversations between V and Min were accepted as evidence in the case.
However, the problem arose because the ruling would reveal the real names of the people involved in the conversation. Typically, court orders are delivered only to the plaintiff and defendant. When such documents are subsequently published on public platforms, personal names are typically redacted. Consequently, an unmodified version of the judgment would normally only be in the possession of the litigants.
Following the report, a debate quickly erupted online. Some netizens speculated that the ruling might have leaked from Min Hee Jin’s side, as she was the prevailing party in the case. Observers argued that HYBE, having lost the case, would have little to gain from disclosing the document.
During Min Hee Jin’s fourth press conference on February 25, a question was raised about the background to the alleged leak. According to Women’s News, lawyer Kim Sun Woong, Min’s legal representative who attended the conference, responded: “There is nothing we can comment on.” He added: “When we presented the evidence, we asked the court to keep it confidential. We do not know through what route the non-public evidence was reported by the media. We believe this is a matter that should be resolved between the media and the court.”
However, some legal analysts have suggested that this statement may not be in line with current circumstances. A legal industry insider explained that when presenting evidence containing trade secrets or other sensitive material, parties can submit a request to restrict access and copying. Reportedly, whether such a request has been made can be confirmed through case research. Although HYBE’s request records appear in the system, there is reportedly no visible record of such a request from Min Hee Jin.
HYBE also denied any involvement in the alleged leak. The company rejected the suggestion, saying: “It makes no sense to suspect that the losing party leaked the ruling.”
Sources: Nate
