Min Hee-jin

2025–present: OOAK

In December 2025, Min revealed her plan to produce a boy group under her newly established entertainment agency OOAK (stylised as OOAK Records). In February 2026, the agency shared its first branding materials through social networks, noting that it was actively recruiting trainees.

Loan repayment towards the purchase of ADOR shares

In November 2024, TenAsia reported that Bang Si-hyuk had personally lent Min Hee-jin approximately ₩3.7 billion (US$2.76 million) in March 2023 to finance her purchase of 573,160 shares in ADOR, representing an 18% stake in the company. According to the report, the loan was made in Bang's personal capacity and was separate from the shareholder agreement between Min and Hybe. TenAsia estimated that the outstanding debt, including interest calculated at the statutory rate of 4.6%, had reached approximately ₩3.94 billion (US$2.94 million) by the end of November 2024. The report also stated that Bang was considering legal measures to recover the money following Min's resignation as an ADOR inside director on November 20, 2024.

In October 2026, it was reported that Bang had filed a civil lawsuit against Min seeking repayment of approximately ₩4.21 billion (US$3.14 million), including interest, from the loan made in connection with her purchase of ADOR shares in 2023. According to media reports, Min borrowed ₩3.74 billion (US$2.79 million) from Bang when she purchased 573,160 shares in ADOR, representing approximately 17.8% of the company, for about ₩3.738 billion.

Bang reportedly applied for a payment order in April 2026, and the Seoul Western District Court issued an order in May requiring Min to repay the whole amount plus interest. Min contested the order in July, resulting in the matter proceeding as a civil lawsuit. The claimed amount included approximately ₩500 million (US$373,057.49) in interest, although the precise terms of the loan agreement were not publicly confirmed.

Min's representatives disputed the separate pursuit of repayment, arguing that the loan was connected to the shareholder agreement between the parties and should be offset against amounts payable under a separate put-option dispute. They cited a first-instance ruling ordering Hybe to pay Min approximately ₩25.5 billion (US$19.03 million) in connection with the put option. Hybe appealed that ruling, leaving the dispute unresolved at the time of the October 2026 reports. Min's representatives characterized the repayment lawsuit as inconsistent with Hybe's failure to pay the put-option amount pending appeal and stated that Min intended to resolve the parties' financial claims through the legal proceedings.

Source Music

On July 15, 2024, Source Music filed a ₩500 million (US$373,057.49) lawsuit against Min. The lawsuit alleges that Min interfered with Source Music's operations, causing financial losses and breaching contractual obligations. On August 22, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court accepted Min Hee-jin's KakaoTalk messages as admissible evidence. The lawsuit alleges that Min defamed the company by claiming she personally cast the members of NewJeans and accusing Source Music of neglect. Min's legal team had argued the messages were unlawfully obtained, but the court ruled that since the device was accessed with a known password, the acquisition did not violate communication privacy laws. Meanwhile, the court rejected Source Music's request to submit a multimedia presentation, stating oral arguments in open court were sufficient. The next hearing is scheduled for November 7, 2025, at 4:30 p.m.

Belift Lab

Civil case

On May 22, 2024, Belift Lab, the Hybe-affiliated agency of Illit, filed a ₩2 billion (US$1.49 million) damages lawsuit against Min Hee-jin, alleging that her public statements that Illit had copied NewJeans were false and had caused reputational and business damage to the company and its artists.

At the final hearing before the Seoul Western District Court on 11 September 2026, Belift Lab argued that Min had presented the alleged copying as fact and that her prominence in the music industry gave her statements particular influence. The company also disputed Min's characterization of her remarks as questions or expressions of opinion. Min's legal representatives argued that her comments were made in response to concerns about creative similarities and constituted a response to Hybe's actions, maintaining that the dispute concerned broader issues of creative ethics and originality in the K-pop industry. The court concluded arguments and scheduled the verdict for 13 November 2026. On 12 October, Belift Lab applied to reopen proceedings, prompting Min's representatives to allege that the application could delay the ruling. As of 14 October 2026, the court had not announced whether it would grant the application.

Min also filed a ₩5 billion (US$3.73 million) countersuit, alleging that Illit's similarities to NewJeans had caused NewJeans and herself mental and financial harm. The court concluded the trial proceedings on 11 September 2026, with a first-instance judgment scheduled for 13 November 2026.

Potential criminal case

On October 1, 2026, the Yongsan Police Station referred former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin and two former ADOR vice presidents, all parties to the shareholder agreement case, to prosecutors on suspicion of business obstruction and defamation. The case stemmed from Min's April 2024 allegations that Belift Lab's girl group Illit had copied aspects of NewJeans, including audition posters, hanbok photo concepts, debut strategy and choreography. Police reportedly concluded that the allegations were false and had been made with the intention of damaging Hybe and Belift Lab.

Min's representatives disputed the police's conclusions, stating that the referral represented an investigative opinion rather than a prosecutorial charge or a final court judgment. They also questioned the consistency of the decision, citing an earlier case in which the same police station had declined to refer a complaint against Min. Her representatives further argued that concerns about similarities between the two groups had already been discussed publicly before her April 2024 press conference.

The allegations followed earlier court proceedings concerning the dispute between ADOR and NewJeans. In March and October 2025, courts reportedly found insufficient evidence to establish that Illit had plagiarised NewJeans' concept, while acknowledging some similarities in planning materials and photographs.

Belift Lab's creative director

On August 24, 2026, it was reported that an employee of Hybe subsidiary Belift Lab had lost a civil damages lawsuit against former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin. The Seoul Western District Court's Civil Division 22 dismissed the employee's claims on August 21 and ordered the plaintiff, identified as "A", to bear the legal costs. "A" had sought ₩100 million (US$74,611.5) plus interest from Min and a former ADOR vice president, identified as "S".

"A", described as Belift Lab's creative director, filed the lawsuit over Min's April 2024 allegations that Illit had copied NewJeans. "A" argued that Min's April 22 statement, April 25 press conference, subsequent court arguments and emails contained false claims that damaged their reputation. "A" also claimed that the former ADOR vice president had jointly participated in the alleged wrongdoing and that they were subjected to online attacks from Min's supporters.

The court rejected the claim against the former ADOR executive, finding insufficient evidence that "S" had participated in or facilitated Min's alleged actions. It also dismissed the claims against Min, primarily because "A" had not been sufficiently identified as the subject of her statements. The court noted that neither Min's statement nor her press conference named "A" or referred to their position.

The court further found that Min's characterization of Illit as copying NewJeans across areas such as hair, makeup, clothing, choreography, photography and video was a general allegation about the group, rather than a specific accusation against "A" in their role overseeing its visual direction. It therefore did not consider "A" to have been individually identified as the alleged perpetrator.

Regarding the alleged online harassment, the court noted that "A" had made and deleted several Instagram posts that subsequently circulated among Min's supporters, meaning the attacks could not necessarily be attributed solely to Min's statements.

Because the court found that "A" had not been sufficiently identified as the alleged victim of defamation, it concluded that the damages claim against Min could not succeed and found it unnecessary to rule separately on whether the statements were factual, false or otherwise unlawful. "A" later reportedly declined to appeal, making the dismissal final.

ADOR

Party to Danielle Marsh v. ADOR

On December 29, 2025, ADOR, the HYBE-owned label behind NewJeans, filed a civil lawsuit seeking approximately ₩43.1 billion (US$32.16 million) in damages from former member Danielle Marsh, one of her family members, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin. The lawsuit was filed on the same day ADOR announced that it had terminated its exclusive contract with Marsh, a Korean-Australian member of NewJeans. ADOR claimed that Marsh's family member and Min shared "significant responsibility" for the dispute that had engulfed the group for more than a year, as well as for the members' departure and delayed return. ADOR initially sought approximately ₩43.1 billion in penalties and damages from the three defendants, but after replacing its legal representatives, adjusted the amount claimed to approximately ₩33.1 billion (US$24.7 million). ADOR said the adjustment was made after its new legal representatives reviewed the case and restructured the claims.

On 14 May 2026, hearings began at the Seoul Central District Court. At the second hearing of the lawsuit, held on June 11, the parties continued to dispute the conduct and scope of the proceedings. Marsh's legal team argued that ADOR's replacement of its legal representatives before the trial amounted to a "malicious attempt to delay the proceedings", which ADOR denied. The parties also disagreed over whether the claims against Marsh should be heard separately from those against Min Hee-jin and Marsh's family member. The court requested written submissions on whether the contractual claims against Marsh should be separated from the tort claims against Min and Marsh's family member.

Alleged coverup of workplace harassment

In March 2024, a former female ADOR employee filed an internal complaint alleging that a male executive had subjected her to workplace bullying and sexual harassment. The employee alleged that the executive had made sexist remarks, including a comment about dining with young women, and had pressured her to attend a dinner involving alcohol. An internal investigation subsequently closed the case without disciplinary action against the executive. The employee later alleged that Min Hee-jin, then CEO of ADOR, had sided with the executive, shared details of the complaint with him, assisted him in preparing his response, and declined to issue him a warning. The employee resigned from ADOR on March 21, 2024.

The allegations became public in July and August 2024. In an August 8 Instagram post, the former employee accused Min of attempting to cover up the complaint and of verbally abusing her during the dispute. She also alleged that Min had disclosed or edited portions of private KakaoTalk conversations without her consent. Min denied the allegations. In a statement released on August 13, she said that the former employee's account distorted the circumstances and argued that the dispute concerned the employee's work performance rather than harassment. Min said that she had attempted to mediate between the parties and that the male executive had denied making the alleged sexist remark. She also disputed the former employee's characterization of her conduct and said that the employee's performance had been a longstanding concern at ADOR, which the former employee rejected Min's account the following day, maintaining that Min had not acted as a neutral mediator. She disputed Min's characterization of her work performance, alleged that the male executive had privately apologized to Min concerning the incident, and said that she had submitted additional documentation to HYBE after being informed that the matter would be reinvestigated. She also said that she intended to pursue legal action against Min.