[Edaily Marketin YunJi Kim JI YEONG-EUI Reporter] As compulsory sale proceedings for the founder’s stake in OGQ, South Korea’s largest intellectual property (IP) content startup, are underway, the founder’s side and the investors’ side are locked in a fierce dispute over responsibility for the failure of the company’s repayment plan and the third-party sale.

OGQ claims that while it proposed sufficient repayment funds along with plans for a selective capital reduction and a third-party sale, it failed to secure the cooperation of investors and some shareholders. In contrast, the general partner (GP) maintains that OGQ CEO Shin Cheol-ho has prolonged the debt recovery process for an extended period.

According to a comprehensive report by Edaily on the 20th, the investment fund that invested in OGQ filed a lawsuit against CEO Shin—designated as an “interested party” under the investment agreement—seeking the return of the investment funds. The court ruled that CEO Shin must pay approximately 12 billion won in principal and interest combined, and the ruling became final after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The issue is that the two sides have conflicting accounts regarding the events leading up to the lawsuit. CEO Shin argues that while he consistently proposed repayment through the company and a third-party sale, the investors refused to accept these proposals and instead unreasonably proceeded with a lawsuit against him personally and initiated enforcement proceedings. Related Article☞ “The investment funds are still in the bank account as is”… Why a startup founder ended up owing 12 billion won

On the other hand, the investors countered that they continued return negotiations for about one year and six months even after the acquisition of Getty Images Korea fell through, but since no agreement was reached, they filed the lawsuit following a resolution by the general meeting of members.

Opinions also diverge regarding the possibility of full repayment of the debt. CEO Shin’s side argued that OGQ holds approximately 40 billion won in assets, combining cash and liquidatable assets, and that about 70% of the company’s shareholders supported a selective paid-in capital reduction or a sale to a third party. Above all, his position is that the 9 billion won at the center of the lawsuit—funds raised in connection with the Getty Images Korea deal, which was contingent on an acquisition—remains intact in the company’s account to this day.

CEO Shin told Edaily, “Although we requested approval for the capital reduction following a board resolution in December 2025, we received no response for about seven months. Even after the investors verbally agreed on June 18 of this year, they have not signed the written consent form, so the process has stalled.”

The asset management firm maintains a position directly opposed to that of CEO Shin. An official from the firm elaborated, “We received only one document from OGQ, which was delivered as recently as last week on July 13,” adding, “The conditions and procedures were unclear, so legal review was necessary. Since a Supreme Court lawsuit was pending earlier this year, we set the condition that they first confirm whether other shareholders had given their consent.” In essence, CEO Shin’s side and the asset management firm’s side offer conflicting accounts regarding the actual timing of the delivery of the request for consent to the capital reduction and the related documents.

The two sides’ claims also diverge regarding the third-party sale proposal. CEO Shin’s side claimed that in 2024, an affiliate of a specific listed company expressed intent to purchase the full principal amount of 9 billion won, but the investors did not accept the offer for reasons unknown to them. They added that if the transaction had been finalized, the debt could have been recovered without the need for enforcement against CEO Shin’s personal assets and equity stakes.

The asset management firm countered that the document presented by CEO Shin was merely a Letter of Intent (LOI) and not a Letter of Commitment (LOC). An official from the asset management firm told Edaily, “It merely expressed an intention to acquire the company and provided no basis to guarantee financing or the closing of the transaction, so it was difficult to accept it as a definitive recovery plan.” In response, CEO Shin stated, “In a situation where the creditor—the asset management firm—has not confirmed its intention to sell, a potential buyer cannot immediately finalize a Letter of Credit (LOC).”

Meanwhile, the National Assembly is also closely monitoring this matter. It is reported that the Assembly plans to submit inquiries to the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service regarding the rationale behind filing a return lawsuit solely against the founder as an individual rather than the company, and whether the “interested party” clause in the investment agreement was used as a means to circumvent the prohibition on joint and several guarantees. In this process, they are expected to examine whether the capital reduction and third-party sale plans proposed by OGQ were actually feasible, the basis for the asset management firm’s claims against individuals, and whether the financial institutions that provided capital were aware of and supervised this method of enforcement.