At an audience held on April 17, Min Hee Jin counteracts Hybe arguments and states that his resignation was illegal; Check it out!
Min hee jinformer CEO of the ador, he finally commented on his judicial battle with Hybe, after an audience held on Friday (17) in South Korea. The art director, through his legal representatives, said his resignation was a violation of the shareholder contract, signed when he took command of the subsidiary company of Hybe.
The case revolves around the termination of this contract, which provided for a five -year term to Hee Jin as the CEO of the ador. She was forced to leave office in August 2024, after decision of the Council, which, according to her legal team, happened improperly. Hybe, in turn, argues that the agreement had already been terminated before the resignation, because according to the agency, the former director’s dismissal was an independent decision of the ador’s board, without direct involvement of it.
Represented by the Office Sejong LLC, Min hee jin He countered the allegation by stating that Hybe did not present enough evidence that justifies its departure. The legal team also accused the company of trying to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the director to present refutations even before the record label formalizes their justification.
“Hybe should prove that the shareholders’ agreement has been coolly terminated. It is not up to Min Hee Jin to do this,” said the office, who also criticized the sending of additional documents only days before the hearing.
Check out complete pronouncement!
Hello. This is the Sejong LLC law firm, legal representative of Min Hee Jin.
This refers to the case related to the confirmation of the termination of the shareholder agreement that occurred today.
Min Hee Jin’s legal representative has already presented arguments written twice, refuting the injustice of the termination reasons alleged by Hybe. Instead, it was Hybe that did not provide any refutation on the illegality of the termination notice, among other points raised by Min Hee Jin.
Hybe presented three additional written documents on April 11, April 14 and April 15, less than a week before the hearing date (April 17). Of course we will send refutation summaries in response later. It should be noted that the burden of proof in this process lies on hybe. In other words, Hybe should prove if the parasocial agreement has been terminated by its warning of termination.
Hybe made statements suggesting that he can only present detailed evidence after Min Hee Jin refuts Hybe’s allegations, but this goes against the principle of distributing the burden of proof in civil litigation. We ask Hybe to be aware that they bear the burden of proof, regardless of the side of Min Hee Jin to provide a refutation.
Thanks.
The case follows in court between Min hee jinHybe and NJZ, former Newjeans.
Source: Recreio
