[Analysis] 2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit

This is an analysis of Hanni and Kim Joo-young testimonies during the 2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit.

Hanni and HYBE CHRO / new ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young testified before South Korea’s National Assembly. The session addressed workplace harassment and the legal and cultural gaps affecting artists like Hanni, who fall outside standard labour protections.

Hanni's Testimony

1. The “Ignore Her” Incident and Subsequent Actions from HYBE

1.1. Hanni’s Experience During the “Ignore Her” Incident

Hanni recounted her experience during the “Ignore Her” incident. Once again, Hanni did not mention any group or label names, focusing solely on the manager’s action and the work environment.

“As they walked by, the manager made eye contact with me and told the members following her, ‘Pretend you didn’t see her, just ignore her.’

I didn’t understand why I had to experience that. And I don’t understand why someone in that position would say something like that in a work environment. But this wasn’t the first time something like this had happened.” - Hanni

1.2 Hanni’s Experience During the Subsequent Investigation and Cover-Up

1.2.1 Kim Joo-young Dismissed Hanni’s concern

Hanni reported the incident to HYBE’s CHRO, then ADOR board member, and now ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young, but was told to endure the harassment due to loss of evidence

“I  was told that since there was no evidence, there was nothing they could do, and they just wanted to let it go.” – Hanni

She expressed that if she did not speak out publicly, the issue would be quietly brushed aside, as had happened before. 

“I felt that if I didn’t speak out today, it would just be quietly brushed under the rug, as it has been before. This kind of thing could happen to anyone.” - Hanni

1.2.2 Deletion of CCTV Footage and Second Meeting

Hanni recounted how the CCTV footage of the incident during the second encounter was missing while the 8-second footage of the first counter was deliberately kept.

“When I first reported the issue, they said there was no evidence, but they mentioned that there was CCTV footage. However, they said it only showed the greeting scene. 

I couldn’t understand why they only had footage of the greeting when I had explained the entire situation. I told them I wanted to see the footage myself, and I did. It was only an 8-second clip showing the greeting, and the footage from 5-10 minutes later was missing.” - Hanni

During a meeting with security personnel on 2024-08-14, explanations for the missing footage kept changing, and someone admitted the footage had been deleted. Hanni recorded the meeting due to language barriers.

“During the meeting, only two people—the head of CCTV protection and the head of security—were present. I kept asking why the later footage was missing because I had clearly explained the situation. Throughout the meeting, their explanation kept changing, and they even accidentally admitted that the footage had been deleted…  I recorded the meeting to make sure I didn’t miss anything important. I have evidence of them lying.” – Hanni

1.2.3 ADOR New Management Enables Harassment

In response to Kim Joo-young saying that she did her best, Hanni stated that HYBE and ADOR, after the management change, did not do their best and lacked the will to fight for the artists. 

“I’m sorry, but I don’t think they did their best. There were definitely more things they could have done. From the beginning, they said they would protect us, but if they really wanted to protect us, they would have had to fight for us. But since they had no will to fight or take any real action, I don’t think they can claim they did their best.” – Hanni

She insisted that the issue be resolved quickly rather than being brushed aside with promises of future improvement.

“Well, I know too well that if I just say I hope they will try harder in the future, this issue will be brushed aside. Before talking about the future, I hope they will resolve this issue” – Hanni

2. Pattern of Hostile Behaviours Targeting NewJeans

Hanni described a persistent, hard-to-define atmosphere of disrespect and exclusion within HYBE and its sub-labels, which targeted NewJeans since their debut. 

She emphasised that the “Ignore Her” incident was not an isolated event, but rather part of a broader pattern of hostility and cold treatment from management and staff, making it clear that HYBE had despised NewJeans since their debut.

“There was always a certain atmosphere in the company, but it was hard to pinpoint or explain. And it was difficult to tell anyone about it because only those who experienced it would truly understand. To be honest, I thought it might have just been my own feelings. But after recent events… I realized that the atmosphere wasn’t just in my head. I became certain that there are people in the company who don’t like us.” - Hanni

2.1 NewJeans Constantly Ignored Since Debut

From the start of her career, Hanni recalled being routinely ignored by senior staff and management, even when she greeted them. She noted that while Korean culture values respect for elders, ignoring greetings is disrespectful on a human level. 

“It wasn’t just that one event…. From the very beginning of my debut, I encountered a number of higher-ups. Every time I greeted them, they never responded. From living in Korea, I’ve come to understand that it’s part of the culture to be respectful to those who are older. But not responding to a greeting—regardless of rank—just seemed disrespectful, even from a human perspective.” - Hanni

2.2 Other instances of bullying

Hanni pointed to multiple recent events that confirmed her sense of being targeted. These included seeing NewJeans mocked by company employees on the Blind app and learning that HYBE’s PR team had asked a journalist to downplay NewJeans’ achievements in Japan. These actions, she said, made it clear that the company’s animosity was not just her imagination.

“But after recent events—like the incident with that manager, and seeing NewJeans being criticized on the Blind app by company employees, as well as hearing a recording of a PR team leader trying to lower the success of our Japan debut—I realized that the atmosphere wasn’t just in my head. I became certain that there are people in the company who don’t like us.” - Hanni

Hanni’s testimony is further supported by public displays of hostility, such as negative comments about NewJeans by HYBE employees on social media and internal platforms.

2.3 Perceived Reasons for Mistreatment

Hanni suggested that NewJeans’ different debut path and success led to hostility within the company, possibly exacerbated by shareholder disputes.

“We debuted differently. Normally, there’s a set path in the company. But we debuted in a different way. And because we succeeded, I think they’re trying to bring us down.” – Hanni

She acknowledged that the conflict between CEO Min Heejin and CEO Bang Si-hyuk might be related, but that doesn’t mean she and her bandmates should endure workplace bullying for it.

“It can’t be unrelated. Because they do have a relationship. But setting that aside, they didn’t need to bring it into work. But like I said before, they keep doing this, so I felt like I couldn’t just stay silent anymore.” – Hanni

3. Advocacy on Artists’ Rights and Systemic Change

3.1 Speaking Out for All K-Pop Artists and Trainees

Hanni made it clear her decision to testify was motivated by a desire to protect not only herself and her group but also all those who might be vulnerable in the industry, especially trainees, juniors, and peers who lack a public voice.

“This kind of thing could happen to anyone. So I decided to speak up, hoping that neither seniors, juniors, peers, nor trainees would have to experience this kind of treatment.” – Hanni

She also stressed that the fundamental issue is not about legal status, contracts, or fame, but about treating all individuals, whether artists, trainees, or staff, with basic human dignity. She called for a shift in perspective within the industry to recognize this shared humanity.

“First of all, the contracts between artists and trainees can differ, right? But one thing that doesn’t change is that we are all human. I feel like a lot of people miss that point. I hope people take another look at it.” – Hanni

She argued that many of the industry’s most persistent problems—including workplace harassment—could be prevented if everyone, regardless of position, simply respected each other as people.

“While I know that no law can solve all the problems in the world, I feel that… if we respect each other as humans, at the very least, issues like workplace harassment and other sensitive matters wouldn’t exist.” – Hanni

Hanni expressed gratitude for the attention on this issue and hopes that her testimony would help improve protections for all workers in the industry.

“I’ve seen that many people are concerned for us, and I’m very thankful. … What I want to say here is that there’s no need to feel sorry. … I truly appreciate it, and you’ve all worked so hard.” – Hanni

3.2 The Need for a Culture of Accountability

Hanni also criticised the tendency of those in power to avoid responsibility, emphasising that genuine respect and accountability are essential for a healthy work environment.

“On the contrary, the people who should be apologising should come forward confidently if they’ve done nothing wrong, without avoiding accountability, but instead, they keep dodging situations like this, which is really frustrating.” – Hanni

Kim Joo-young’s Testimony

1. Response to “Ignore Her” Incident

1.1. Mishandling of the Harassment Incident and Evidence

Kim Joo-young stated she was first informed of the “ignore her” incident by Hanni’s parents on 2024-06-13. She claimed that, as an ADOR board member, she took all possible steps: requesting a review of the CCTV footage, asking the relevant label (Belift Lab) to investigate, and checking whether the footage could be restored.

“I was first informed on June 13th by the informant’s parents when I was still a board member at ADOR. … I requested to check the CCTV footage. The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. Nonetheless, I requested that the relevant label investigate whether such incidents had occurred between the artist and the manager. Additionally, I even checked if the CCTV footage, which had expired, could be restored. I took all possible steps within my capacity.” – Kim Joo-young

She maintained that the only footage available was an 8-second clip showing the greeting, and the rest had expired after 30 days per data protection policy.

“The only footage we were able to secure was the one showing the manager greeting someone, and we kept that footage. I want to clarify that the other footage wasn’t deleted; it simply expired after 30 days according to the standard personal data protection guidelines, so it’s not recoverable.” – Kim Joo-young

1.1.1. Counter-Argument: Gaslighting Despite Ample Time to Secure Evidence

Both Kim and NewJeans’ parents confirmed the incident was reported on 2024-06-13—9 working days before the CCTV retention period ended. There was ample time to secure the footage if HYBE had acted promptly. The loss of evidence was completely due to HYBE’s delay and mishandling. 

Despite this, Hanni had experienced gaslighting from Kim-Joo-young where she blamed the loss of evidence footage on Hanni for supposedly reporting the incident too late.

“CEO Kim Jooyoung had previously told Hanni, ‘You should have reported this earlier; the footage was already deleted after a month.’ But Hanni had clearly spoken up early on, and we also raised the issue immediately. Despite that, we got such a response, so Hanni must have thought, ‘Are they saying I did something wrong?’” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 Ilgan Sports Interview)

1.1.2. Counter-Argument: Inconsistent Explanations for CCTV and Possible Cover-up

While Kim Joo-young maintained that the footage was deleted due to the 30 day data retention policy, Hanni and NewJeans’ parents have been given other explanations on why the footage was deleted. Notably, Hanni had testified minutes before that a security personnel admitted that the footage was deliberately deleted on record.

“I kept asking why the later footage was missing because I had clearly explained the situation. Throughout the meeting, their explanation kept changing, and they even accidentally admitted that the footage had been deleted…  I recorded the meeting to make sure I didn’t miss anything important. I have evidence of them lying.” – Hanni

Despite this, Kim Joo-Young reportedly tried to emotionally intimidate Hanni into letting it go.  

“During the meeting on the 23rd, Hanni explained to CEO Kim Joo-young, 'Since you said only the victims can confirm, on the day I visited the security team to check the CCTV, the security staff couldn't make eye contact with me and were fidgeting with their hands.' In response, CEO Kim Joo-young said something like, 'I'm looking at you directly,' which left Hanni feeling very surprised." - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 Ilgan Sports Interview)

1.1.3. Counter-Argument: Why Was Belift Lab Allowed to Investigate and Control Evidence?

Despite being HYBE’s CHRO, Kim left the investigation and evidence handling to Belift Lab—the label accused of wrongdoing—instead of having ADOR or HYBE’s HR department review the footage or conduct the investigation themselves. 

“I requested that the relevant label (Belift Lab) investigate whether such incidents had occurred between the artist and the manager. ” – Kim Joo-young

This created a clear conflict of interest and undermined the credibility of the process.

“If this is an issue between subordinate labels, shouldn't HYBE maintain neutrality in the investigation? Moreover, isn't it right for the department responsible for workplace harassment to handle it? ... Yet, they were looking for relevant materials from Belift Lab.

Requests to find this CCTV footage should have been made directly by Ador to the security team, or through the workplace harassment department at HYBE. Why would the Ador board request Belift Lab to look for it? My suspicions have only increased.

This is essentially like asking the perpetrator to find the evidence footage. In the end, they claimed the scene containing the problematic 'ignore' had been deleted, and when I suggested doing a forensic recovery, they said it was impossible due to technical issues, leaving me wondering how I could possibly trust that.” - NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 Ilgan Sports Interview)

As HYBE’s CHRO, Kim Joo-young was fully responsible for investigating suspected workplace bullying across all sub-labels. By allowing Belift Lab to have full control over the evidence and investigation, she failed to ensure impartiality and transparency, raising serious doubts about the integrity of the process.

2. Deflection of Responsibility as HYBE CHRO

Throughout her testimony, Kim Joo-young repeatedly tried to limit her accountability to her role as ADOR board member or CEO, despite also being HYBE’s current CHRO—a position with responsibility for labor, artist welfare, and workplace culture across all HYBE sub-labels, and authority to conduct investigations. When pressed by lawmakers, she avoided direct answers about her CHRO duties and the HYBE’s HR obligations.

Park Hong-bae: “Are you still the Chief Human Resources Officer at HYBE?”
Kim Joo-young: “Yes, that’s correct.”

Park Hong-bae: “Have you ever apologized to the artists in your capacity as CHRO?”

Kim Joo-young: “...When I meet with artists, I try my best to assist them and show respect as a corporate executive of Ador.”

Park Hong-bae: “As CHRO, you also bear responsibility, so I believe you should apologize.”

Kim Joo-young: “Yes, if there is a need for an apology, I will make one.”

Kim’s insistence on responding as ADOR CEO, rather than as HYBE CHRO, is a clear attempt to avoid accountability. As CHRO, she should have intervened at the parent company’s level, ensured an impartial investigation, and taken responsibility for HR failures across all labels.

2.1. Use of Corporate Structure as an Excuse

Kim repeatedly cited HYBE’s multi-label structure as a reason for inaction, claiming that each label operates as a separate legal entity. She claimed this made it difficult for her as she cannot intervene directly across subsidiaries as an ADOR board member — even though, as CHRO, she oversees HR matters for all sub-labels under HYBE.

“The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. … As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.” – Kim Joo-young

Lawmakers challenged this excuse:

• HYBE is a centralised company with multiple sub-labels, and the “separate entity” excuse is not credible. 

• As CHRO, Kim has the authority and duty to enforce standards and mediate disputes acorss HYBE’s sub-label, especially in cases of workplace bullying.

Kim Joo-young: “The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. … As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.”

Park Jeong: “At the group level, isn’t there room for mediation from higher-ups? If two separate companies can’t resolve it, surely there are higher-ranking officials like the chairman who could mediate?”

Kim Joo-young: “As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.”

Park Hong-bae: “In the past, entertainment companies did not operate with numerous subsidiary companies under a single corporation, did they? But now, even if they are physically together, the companies are divided legally. If the other managers from different subsidiaries say something, how can we respond if your management has the attitude of ‘That's a different company; we can't engage’?”

Kim Joo-young: “Yes, I take your criticism to heart.”

Kim’s reliance on corporate structure as an excuse highlights a deeper issue of accountability at HYBE.

Despite sharing the same parent company, work environment, and HR department, HYBE treats its sub-labels as separate entities when it suits them.

This unique sub-label system, unlike other K-pop companies, creates a loophole where cross-label offenses are difficult to address properly. This structure allows HYBE to sidestep responsibility by compartmentalising its subsidiaries, even though they operate under the same umbrella.

3. The Impact of Corporate Conflict

Kim acknowledged that ongoing disputes among HYBE’s major shareholders might be affecting the company atmosphere and said employees were told to focus on their work.

“Yes, from the perspective of the employees... The company has informed employees that this is a legal matter currently under judicial review, so we ask everyone to focus on their work in their respective positions.” – Kim Joo-young

Kim did not address how such a hostile environment may have enabled or escalated bullying and exclusion, nor did she outline any concrete steps to protect artists and staff from the fallout of corporate conflict.

Hanni also noted that the cold treatment toward NewJeans predated the shareholder dispute, but the conflict intensified the negative atmosphere and made open hostility more common.

4. Contradictions on Artist Status and Policy

Kim initially distinguished between artists and employees, but was forced to admit that HYBE’s code of conduct includes artists as “members” and that telling Hanni to be ignored would violate the code.

Park Hong-bae: “Did you say that HYBE members are employees?”

Kim Joo-young: “Yes, that’s right.”

Park Hong-bae: “So, artists are not considered members?”

Kim Joo-young: “Our Code of Conduct encompasses all members, including artists, and emphasizes the importance of respect among members and external partners when collaborating.”

Park Hong-bae: “I have the code here. It clearly states that ‘HYBE members include the company, artists, and other members.’”

Kim Joo-young: “...In a broad sense, yes, you could say that.”

Park Hong-bae: “There is no broad definition mentioned in the code. It specifies that ‘HYBE members must protect the affiliated artists and respect their personal rights and must refer to the artists by their appropriate titles.’ Therefore, if Hanni Pham was told to be ignored, that would be a violation of this code, right?”

Kim Joo-young: “...If it is true that she was told to be ignored, then yes, that would be a violation of the code.”

Kim’s shifting answers and reluctance to admit clear violations of company policy further undermine her credibility and highlight a pattern of minimising or deflecting responsibility, which corroborates with Hanni’s accusation of a systematic lack of accountability within HYBE.

5. Commitment to Improvement

Kim promised to listen more closely to artists, strengthen communication, and cooperate with the ongoing investigation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor. She asked for trust and time as the new CEO of ADOR.

“We will listen more carefully to Hanni and other artists, and we will work to protect their rights and ensure that they can pursue their dreams and hopes to the fullest. … If you trust me and give me a little more time, I will work to build a better company, one that contributes to society and responds to the love of K-pop fans.” – Kim Joo-young

These promises have been made before in previous scandals, but without structural change, they risk being empty words. The lack of concrete action or accountability to date raises doubts about HYBE’s willingness to address root causes.

True improvement requires not just listening, but implementing enforceable protections and transparent processes for artists and workers.

6. Response to Employee Death Allegation

Kim confirmed that in 2022-09, a HYBE employee collapsed at work and later died, claiming it was due to a personal health condition, not overwork, and denied any attempt to cover up the incident.

“Yes, in September, the individual went to the rest area around 5 p.m., saying they would take a break. Unfortunately, they collapsed, and we found them and took them to the hospital. They passed away a few days later due to a personal health condition.” – Kim Joo-young
“There was absolutely no attempt to cover up the incident at HYBE. Such a thing would never happen.” – Kim Joo-young
“That was the decision of the family.” – Kim Joo-young

Lawmakers and some HYBE employees questioned this explanation, pointing out that regardless of pre-existing conditions, the death occurred after an intensive period of overwork. 

In top of that, since HYBE failed to file an industrial accident claim, subsequent autopsy was not performed, and there is no way to conclusively determine the true cause of death.

This reflects a broader pattern of inadequate transparency and accountability in HYBE’s handling of labor and safety issues.