Min Hee-jin "Internal director term, unfair contract that should be guaranteed for five years, Hive's trap" (Full Story)
Aug 30, 2024
|
On the 30th, former CEO Min announced his position to refute Audor's claims in relation to the Newzins production contract.
Earlier, former CEO Min stated that the very short-term production contract was unfair, given that the board of directors designated the term of the Newzins production contract as two months. In addition, there are many toxic provisions that can be terminated by Odor's unilateral intention.
On the other hand, Adore confronted the 'two-month production work commission contract' that 'all registered directors apply equally.' In addition, former CEO Min's claim that there are many toxic provisions that can be unilaterally terminated from the contract explained that `If you do not faithfully perform your duties as a producer, you have prepared a minimum device to prevent acts that cause great damage to management.'
He also expressed his regret that former CEO Min immediately issued a position without consulting with the board of directors despite disagreements over the contract.
Then, former representative Min issued a statement again, and pointed out the argument one by one. First of all, Adore's claim that the term of office of the inside director was until November 1, so he sent a contract about the role of the remaining period "The term of office of the inside director and the production work are not related" He pointed out that the producer can be in charge of it even if he is not an inside director, and it is rather strange to connect it because the roles are completely different"
Citing that the new CEO Kim Joo-young is an HR expert, he said that Kim Joo-young, who is an HR expert, cannot be unaware of this, and this is just an excuse that can only come out because the grounds for explaining contracts that are not common sense are poor.
He argued that "The term of office of the inside director should also be extended under the contract between shareholders and guaranteed for a total of five years."
Addor's claim that the contract can be terminated unilaterally was also problematic. Former CEO Min said "There are too many provisions in the business commission contract sent by the board of directors that can be unilaterally terminated without any standards or grounds."
It is an unfair contract that allows even the two-month contract period to be shortened at the whim of Adore (Hive), saying "the provisions not in the other contracts signed by Adore or Hive". It is common sense that contracts are made under mutual consultation."
Pointing out that he announced his position first, not in consultation with the board of directors, on the terms of the contract, he pointed out that "Hive has been playing the media by announcing it first and leaking information without consultation with the media."
Again, the board of directors (Hive) requested an autograph within three days without discussing the production work or suggesting the deadline for negotiations"It is the Adore Board (Hive) that has not made a single attempt to consult with the parties to the contract. "Since Hive has first made issues through the media without discussing the parties from the beginning of the situation, he/she can be similarly attacked this time, so he/she reveals the facts first."
Other provisions were also mentioned. Former CEO Min said, "'The Board of Directors can order concurrent positions of other duties besides the producer duties' or ostensibly 'profit activities', but many provisions that clearly show intention were also found, such as those restricting broadcasting, public relations, and lectures'."
"If you don't sign a contract, you'll play the media that you refused to produce, and if you refer to this irrationality and sign a contract, it's obvious that you'll talk about the breach of the contract based on those irrational provisions or harass you for making a contract."
Finally, "An unfair contract is proposed again following an unreasonable inter-shareholder contract, which sets another trap, and informs us that it was impossible to sign."," he stressed.
The following is the full text of former CEO Min Hee-jin's statement.
Reveal your position on the response of the board of directors regarding the unfairness of the production business delegation contract.
1. Regarding the claim that the term of office of the inside director is until November 1, so the contract was sent for the role of the remaining period:
The term of office of the in-house director and the production work are not related. Producers can be in charge even if they are not in-house directors, and it is rather strange to connect because their roles are completely different.
CEO Kim Joo-young, who is an HR expert, cannot be unaware of this, and this is just an excuse that comes out because the basis for explaining contracts that are not common sense is poor. The term of office of the inside director must also be extended according to the inter-shareholder contract and guaranteed for a total of five years.
2. In response to the claim that termination is a general provision:
There are too many provisions in the delegation contract sent by the Board of Directors that allow unilateral termination of the contract without any standards or grounds.
These are provisions that are not in the other contracts signed by Adore or Hive. It is an unfair contract that allows even the two-month contract period to be shortened at the whim of Adore (Hive). It is common sense that contracts are made under mutual consultation.
3. Regarding the claim that any disagreement with the contract should have been discussed with the Board of Directors, not the statement of position:
It is Hive who has been playing the media by announcing first and leaking information without consultation with the media. Audor's Board of Directors (Hive) has been requesting signatures within three days without any discussion of production work or suggestions on the deadline for negotiations.
It is the Audor Board (Hive) that has not made a single attempt to consult with the parties to the contract. Since Hive has first made issues through the media without discussing the parties from the beginning of the situation, he can be similarly attacked this time, so he reveals the fact first.
4. Other mysterious provisions:
A number of provisions have also been discovered that clearly indicate intentions, such as "'The Board of Directors may order a concurrent position in addition to the producer's duties' or ostensibly 'Profit Activities' but are restricted to broadcasting, public relations, lectures, etc.
If you don't sign a contract, you'll play the media that you refused to produce, and if you bear with this irrationality, you'll definitely talk about the breach of the contract based on those irrational provisions or harass you that it's wrong to sign a contract. This is an act of setting another trap by proposing an unfair contract again following an unreasonable inter-shareholder contract, indicating that the signature was impossible.
rightlight@sportschosun.com
