Kim Eo-jun: "Min Hee-jin is in the top tier... You shouldn't use the word 'slave'"

"Hybe Gave an Enormous Reward"

Kim Eo-jun, host of the YouTube channel 'Kim Eo-jun's Humility is Difficult News Factory' (News Factory), dismissed the conflict between entertainment agency HYBE and its subsidiary label ADOR's CEO Min Hee-jin as a "celestial realm story." He also criticized Min's comparison of her contract relationship with HYBE to "slavery," saying, "Such terminology should not be used."

Min Hee-jin, CEO of ADOR (left), broadcaster Kim Eo-jun (right). [Source=Asia Economy DB, YouTube capture]

On the 29th, Kim discussed the so-called 'ADOR management rights takeover suspicion' on the News Factory broadcast with economic commentator Park Si-dong. Kim stated on the show, "HYBE must have really valued CEO Min," adding, "They gave her an enormous compensation."

The compensation he referred to was the exercise ratio of the put option (the right to sell shares at a specific price) granted by HYBE to CEO Min. Min held an 18% stake in ADOR, and HYBE gave her the right to sell 13% of that stake.

Regarding this, commentator Park explained, "The biggest drawback of unlisted stocks is that they are difficult to convert into cash, but the merit here is that an exit plan has been somewhat opened." He added, "Current media reports suggest valuing the company at 13 times its operating profit." In summary, the amount CEO Min can cash out by exercising the put option is around 100 billion KRW.

Park pointed out, "However, HYBE claims that Min demanded 30 times the operating profit, not 13 times," adding, "Then the amount she could cash out would be 300 to 400 billion KRW." He continued, "The company hasn't earned that much yet, but they are being asked to pay 400 billion KRW. Park Jin-young's stake in JYP is worth 400 billion KRW, and Min created NewJeans and is being asked to pay that 400 billion KRW. Isn't that unreasonable?"

Regarding the 'non-compete clause' that would prevent CEO Min from working in related fields for a while if she leaves the company, Park said, "Usually, CEOs or executives control company information, and such people should not jump to competing companies." He added, "Naturally, there is a business prohibition under commercial law, and it exists in all fields."

He continued, "Six months for a non-compete clause is reasonable, and 2 to 3 years is reasonable in specialized industries." He claimed, "Currently, it is said that Min's non-compete clause lasts for 5 years, and as a commentator, my personal opinion is that 5 years is reasonable."

After hearing Park's explanation, Kim said, "HYBE is basically saying, 'You can earn hundreds of billions while you are with this company, but if you leave, that becomes very difficult.'" He added, "Calling this a slave contract is nonsense. That term should not be used."

Earlier, on the 25th, at a press conference held by CEO Min, her legal representative explained, "Since early this year, we have been renegotiating the shareholder agreement made last year between HYBE and CEO Min."

At the event, CEO Min claimed, "I signed a strange shareholder agreement with HYBE. There is 5% of shares that are tightly locked so I cannot sell them," adding, "I cannot exercise my rights and am forever bound to HYBE," asserting it was a slave contract. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the non-compete clause.

Min Hee-jin, CEO of ADOR, is making a statement on the conflict with the parent company HYBE at the Korea Conference Center in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 25th. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

Subsequently, HYBE directly refuted CEO Min's claims through a press release. Regarding the 5% stake to which the put option does not apply, they stated, "Shares can be sold starting from November this year."

Regarding the non-compete clause, they clarified, "It does not apply from November 2026, when the employment contract expires." They also emphasized, "Non-compete clauses are common in all industries," adding, "Given the large compensation, the possibility of cashing out and starting a business in the year after next, this cannot be called a slave contract."