Min Hee-jin's side says HYBE had final say over NewJeans contracts

In response to foreign media reports that group NewJeans' exclusive contract contained unfair clauses, HYBE has stated that former Ador CEO Min Hee-jin was the contracting party at the time. In response, Min Hee-jin, the representative of OAKK Records and former CEO of Ador, countered that HYBE held the final approval authority.

"It is time for HYBE to move beyond the absurd notion that Min Hee-jin is responsible for everything and demonstrate accountability and a willingness to improve for the future of K-pop," Min's side said in an official statement released Thursday. It criticized the company for shifting responsibility onto its subsidiary, pointing to a decision-making structure under which contracts could not be finalized without approval from HYBE's CEO.

The dispute follows a report by The New York Times that exclusive contracts signed by NewJeans members when they were minors contained unfair provisions. In response, HYBE and Ador said they had signed supplementary agreements incorporating basic human rights protections into the contracts. They also said the wording had been negotiated and signed with the participation of Min, who was Ador's CEO at the time, the members and their parents, as well as legal representatives of some members, describing Min as "the party responsible for the contracts."

Min's side said, however, that the initial drafts of the NewJeans exclusive contracts were prepared by HYBE's legal team and that subsequent revisions were also handled through the team. It added that contracts could not be finalized solely with the approval of Ador's CEO, as they were subject to further review and approval by HYBE's legal team, chief financial officer and CEO. In other words, Ador could not proceed with the agreements without HYBE's consent.

It also pointed out that Min had previously said HYBE itself rejected her request in 2024 for authority to sign major contracts, including exclusive artist agreements, arguing that this contradicted the claim that individual labels had independent decision-making powers.

Regarding decisions on certain settlement terms, Min's side said, "The fact that Ador was able to negotiate some settlement conditions or how expenses were shared is a separate matter from having the authority to independently change the basic structure of exclusive contracts and their major policy provisions established by HYBE."

While there were indications that Ador had sought to accommodate the members in discussions over cost-sharing arrangements, this did not mean it was free to revise all major contract provisions, the statement said. It added that HYBE's claim that Ador had rejected a proposed cost-sharing arrangement should be considered in light of the actual decision-making process.

Whether a proposal was formally rejected in the documents alone was insufficient to determine the overall decision-making process, Min's side argued, cautioning against interpreting the record of accepting or rejecting specific clauses as evidence that Ador had independent authority over the contracts as a whole.

Min's side also acknowledged HYBE's account that the contract process took approximately three months and involved questions and answers, email exchanges, legal reviews and discussions over revisions. However, it stressed that "the existence of such a process is different from having substantive decision-making authority over the key provisions of the contracts."

At the time, Ador's vice president communicated with the members' parents based on contracts drafted by HYBE's legal team, Min's side said. Revisions made during the process were largely limited to clarifying wording and reducing the possibility of misunderstandings, it added.

"The structure itself, in which HYBE prepared the key provisions of the contracts and participated in the final approval process, did not change," the statement said.

Min's side went on to criticize HYBE for designing a system in which a subsidiary's CEO could not approve a contract without the approval of HYBE's CEO, only to then identify someone else to take the blame.

"Designing a structure in which a subsidiary's CEO cannot approve a contract without the approval of HYBE's CEO, then creating someone to shift the responsibility onto and issuing a statement, is tantamount to shooting itself in the foot," it said.

It also questioned HYBE's position that the contracts had no problems while simultaneously identifying Min as the person responsible for all the agreements.

"If HYBE is saying that Min Hee-jin was the party responsible for all these contracts, did it issue such a lengthy explanatory statement because it wanted to praise her?" the statement asked.

This article from the Hankook Ilbo, the sister publication of The Korea Times, is translated by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Times.