The former representative of ADOR, Min Hee-jin, expressed their stance regarding the lawsuit for confirmation of the termination of the shareholders' agreement.
The 31st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court held the second hearing for the lawsuit filed by HYBE against Min Hee-jin and another party on the 17th at 2 p.m.
On this day, the court sought to confirm whether this lawsuit has a connection to the claim for payment following the exercise of the put option that Min Hee-jin filed last year.
HYBE asserted that when Min Hee-jin exercised the put option, the contract had already been terminated, stating, "The question of whose fault it was that led to the termination is a different legal requirement, and thus there is an interest in this lawsuit."
On the other hand, Min Hee-jin's side claimed, "It cannot be said that the shareholders' agreement was terminated at the time of exercising the put option," arguing that there is no need for legal dispute in this lawsuit. The court decided to proceed with the put option-related lawsuit raised by Min Hee-jin.
Additionally, there were continued exchanges over written statements during this hearing. HYBE stated, "The defendants have not yet submitted a rebuttal to the reasons for termination that we claim, making it difficult to present a specific proof plan."
Subsequently, Min Hee-jin's legal representative, the law firm Sejong, stated, "Min Hee-jin's legal representative has already submitted written rebuttals twice regarding the unjustness of the termination reasons claimed by HYBE," adding, "In fact, it is HYBE that has been unable to rebut the illegality of the termination notice pointed out by Min Hee-jin's side."
He continued, "HYBE submitted three additional written statements on April 11, April 14, and April 15, less than a week before the hearing date of April 17, and we naturally plan to submit rebuttal statements regarding these as well. What must be noted is that the burden of proof in this lawsuit lies with HYBE. In other words, whether the shareholders' agreement was terminated by HYBE's termination notice must be proven by HYBE."
Finally, he emphasized, "HYBE made a statement suggesting that Min Hee-jin's side must submit a rebuttal to HYBE's claims in order to present specific proof documents, which contradicts the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in civil litigation. HYBE should be aware that it bears the burden of proof regardless of whether Min Hee-jin's side submits rebuttals."
[Photo] OSEN DB
[OSEN]