His hearing took place that day.
After months of radio silence, ex I love CEO MayThe representatives of S have finally talked about the current cause between Hybe and min. With the hearing for his case intended by Hybe regarding the resolution of the agreement for the shareholders of April 17, 2025, his legal representatives spoke. Since Hybe unilaterally rejected his previously after a meeting of the Board of Directors in August 2024, Min Hee Jin claimed that the dismissal violates his agreement for shareholders with Hybe.
On the other hand, Hybe claimed that the agreement for shareholders was a contract between Hybe and Min, but had already been resolved when it was fired. They argue that the resolution can occur in case of reasons for the resolution and can be resolved by a written notice, canceling the effect of the agreement for shareholders. The cause is to confirm whether the resolution was valid or not. Hybe also said that his dismissal was a decision made independently by the Board of Directors of Ador and was not related to Hybe.
The legal representatives of Min Hee Jin said that Hybe did not show that the resolution was valid.
HI. This is the Sejong Llc law firm, legal representative of Min Hee Jin.
This concerns the case relating to the confirmation of the resolution of the shareholders’ agreement which proceeded today.
The legal representative of Min Hee Jin has already presented topics written twice, confiring the injustice of the reasons for the resolution claimed by Hybe. Rather, it is Hybe who did not provide any refutation regarding the illegality of the resolution notice, among other points raised by Min Hee Jin.
Hybe presented three other documents written on April 11, April 14 and April 15, less than a week before the date of the hearing (April 17). Obviously we will present the refutation briefs in response later. It should be noted that the burden of proof in this cause lies with Hybe. In other words, Hybe must demonstrate whether the shareholders’ agreement has been resolved by their resolution notice.
Hybe has made statements that suggest that they can send detailed evidentiary documents only after the part of Min Hee Jin refutes the statements of Hybe, but this goes against the principle of distributing the burden of proof in civil litigation. We urge Hybe to be aware of the fact that they endure the burden of the test, regardless of the fact that the side of Min Hee Jin provides a refutation.
Thank you.
– Sejong LLC law firm
This is the first time that the public listened to the representatives of Min Hee Jin in 2025. The public previously wondered even if he had left Njz to defend himself. You can read more below.
Has Min Hee Jin left Njz (Newjeans) to face Hybe alone? The article dry becomes viral
