Namyang Dairy Products’ 60-year family ownership comes to end

Lee Hye-ri 2024. 1. 5. 17:32
글자크기 설정 파란원을 좌우로 움직이시면 글자크기가 변경 됩니다.

이 글자크기로 변경됩니다.

(예시) 가장 빠른 뉴스가 있고 다양한 정보, 쌍방향 소통이 숨쉬는 다음뉴스를 만나보세요. 다음뉴스는 국내외 주요이슈와 실시간 속보, 문화생활 및 다양한 분야의 뉴스를 입체적으로 전달하고 있습니다.

A citizen walks in front of Namyang Dairy\'s office building in Nonhyeon-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, South Korea, on Thursday. Yonhap News Agency

A ruling was confirmed on January 4 that Namyang Dairy Products Chairman Hong Won-sik and his family should transfer their shares in the dairy company to Hahn & Company, a local private equity firm. Hong's family, who has maintained the management system of Namyang since its foundation in 1964, will hand over the management rights to Hahn & Company for the first time in 60 years.

The Supreme Court affirmed the original ruling in favor of Hahn & Company in an appeal of a share transfer claim filed by the private equity firm against Chairman Hong's family.

Namyang caused controversy in April 2021, when coronavirus was spreading, as it falsely announced that its yogurt product Bulgari could reduce coronavirus infections. As the backlash grew, Hong apologized to the public and announced his resignation as chairman in May of the same year. He then signed a stock trading contract to transfer all of his family's shares to Hahn & Company.

However, Hong notified Hahn & Company of the termination of the contract, and the private equity firm filed a lawsuit against Hong to sell the shares. Hong claimed that Hahn & Company promised to provide him with "executive-level benefits" but failed to do so, and that the contract itself was invalid as lawyers at the law firm Kim & Chang represented both him and Hahn & Company at the time of the contract.

The first and second trials all ruled in favor of Hahn & Company, and the Supreme Court also concluded that the equity firm won the case. However, unlike the first and second courts, the Supreme Court found that Kim & Chang's lawyers were representing both parties. The Supreme Court said that even if lawyers in a law firm represented both parties, it constituted dual representation, and such representation should be limited in principle. But it concluded that the Namyang’s contract was exceptionally valid, saying that Hong had agreed to the dual representation.

※This article has undergone review by a professional translator after being translated by an AI translation tool.

Copyright © 경향신문. 무단전재 및 재배포 금지.

이 기사에 대해 어떻게 생각하시나요?