Display MoreSo it seems that the main root of the conflict between MHJ and Hybe is their disagreements during the renegotiation process of her contract. She wanted to be allowed to do work outside of Hybe concurrently while Hybe disapproved of that.
This article discusses it a bit and includes some of the statements of MHJ herself and the lawyers:
Throughout the press conference, the defense team stopped Representative Min whenever she tried to speak about the confidentiality clause, but the 'variable' came out at the end. This is because as the press conference came to a close with Attorney Lee's remarks, Representative Min spoke about the ban on concurrent business, which appears to be one of the obligations to maintain confidentiality.
After Attorney Lee finished speaking, CEO Min immediately left the conference room, saying, “I tried to fix the ban on concurrent business (during the renegotiation process between shareholders),” and “I can’t be a slave (of Hive) forever, right?”
Typically, most companies introduce provisions prohibiting concurrent work through employment contracts, employment rules, separate agreements, etc. This is a regulation that prohibits performing other work without prior approval from the company during the agreed time. Although the clause prohibiting concurrent employment does not have legal effect, it can be used as a reason for disciplinary action at the company's discretion, including ▲ job integrity ▲ damage to the company's reputation.
In particular, in the case of executives at the CEO level, it is common for them not to hold concurrent positions as they are in charge of managing one company. The clause prohibiting concurrent employment is one of the contract conditions that in principle requires confidentiality, but if it is disclosed without the consent of the other party, it may be disadvantageous in court. This is why the lawyers of Shin & Kim Law Firm were anxious and restrained Representative Min throughout the press conference. As Hive is filing a complaint against CEO Min (allegations of breach of trust, etc.) based on physical evidence obtained through its own audit, violation of confidentiality obligations is bound to have a negative effect on CEO Min.
That's the usual non competition clause. It's only abusive when it stops a former employee to find work in the same field. For a CEO level it might be even more restricted. She wasn't a freelance employee