Min Hee-jin appeals court ruling upholding workplace harassment fine amid ongoing legal battles with Source Music and Belift Lab

According to an exclusive report published on October 18, 2025, by TenAsia, Min Hee-jin has filed an appeal against a ruling by Seoul Western District Court Judge Jung Cheol-min. The ruling given on October 17, has found the former ADOR CEO guilty of workplace harassment and upheld a fine imposed by the labor authorities.

Previously in 2024 a former ADOR employee filled a report claiming they suffered psychological distress as a result of Min’s verbal abuse. Following that in March 2025, Min was fined by the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office.

Min subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging that fine, but on October 16, Judge Jung Cheol-min ruled in favor of the labor office and upheld the penalty. The following day on October 17, Min submitted an appeal to continue contesting the judgment. Explaining the counter lawsuit filed om October 18, Min Hee-jin's legal team previously stated to Tenasia,

“The Seoul Employment Office judged some of former representative Min’s comments to be workplace bullying and notified her in advance of the imposition of a fine. There is a misunderstanding of the legal principles of the Labor Standards Act, so we are in the process of formally appealing the decision.”

This lawsuit comes as Min faces separate legal battles with Source Music and Belift Lab. Source Music has filed a 500 million won damages lawsuit, while Belift Lab has filed a 2 billion won lawsuit against her.

---

More about the workplace harassment case against Min Hee-jin

Previously, in August 2024, a former female ADOR employee filed a civil lawsuit against Min Hee-jin at the Mapo Police Station. She accused the former ADOR CEO of defamation and violating the Personal Information Protection Act.

The employee also reported incidents of workplace harassment involving Min Hee-jin and a male executive to the Ministry of Employment and Labor. She alleged that the male executive had s****lly harassed her and that Min Hee-jin had helped cover up the incident.

By March 2025, the Ministry of Employment and Labor Office had reviewed the employee’s complaint. They concluded that Min’s remarks caused both physical and psychological distress, worsening the workplace environment. As a result, the ministry imposed a fine of 5 million KRW on Min Hee-jin, determining that the behavior constituted workplace bullying under the Labor Standards Act.

On October 16, the court upheld the ministry’s decision, officially recognizing Min’s behavior as workplace harassment. In addition, a provisional seizure of 100 million KRW was placed on Min’s Seoul residence. This measure ensures that if she loses the civil lawsuit and cannot pay the fine, the seized property can be liquidated to cover damages. Commenting on the situation, Min stated,

"The legal fees came to about USD 1.6 million. I’ll probably have to sell my house because of it, but I actually felt grateful. Maybe I had this home for this reason. If I didn’t have money, I couldn’t fight. I’m thankful that I don’t have a husband or children to worry about, and that my parents are doing well too."

Earlier, in November 2024, the former employee had proposed a settlement if Min Hee-jin admitted wrongdoing and issued an apology. Min did not attend the mediation, with her legal team stating,

"We cannot acknowledge the facts as alleged and have no intention to participate in mediation."

Beyond this case, Min is also involved in separate legal disputes with Source Music and Belift Lab under HYBE. These lawsuits stem from claims made by Min at a press conference in April 2024.

In the press conference she has stated that HYBE “broke their promise to debut NewJeans first and released Le Sserafim first,”. She also has alleged that “ILLIT copied NewJeans’ concept.” Both agencies since have asserted these claims to be false.

---

Following the news of Min’s appeal, online reactions have been intense. Many netizens criticized her for prolonging the legal process instead of acknowledging responsibility. Some expressed frustration stating that her repeated appeals were perceived as a continuation of the emotional harm inflicted on Employee A.

Edited by Adrija Chakraborty