Meritz Financial Group announced that it has already deposited 100 billion won in an escrow account for the normalization of Homeplus, and is strongly demanding a joint guarantee from MBK Partners and Chairman Kim Byeong-ju for the remaining 100 billion won. Meritz emphasizes that it is common sense for ordinary individuals to transparently disclose their assets and income when going through rehabilitation procedures, and raises questions about why Chairman Kim, who operates a fund worth 50 trillion won and is known to have assets of 14 trillion won, avoids guarantees. Meritz warns that the practice of hiding behind the institutional veil of private equity funds and shifting responsibility solely to creditors should no longer be tolerated. They believe that this emergency funding is not simply a matter of financial transactions, but a test to prove the minimum level of trust as a major shareholder.

On the other hand, MBK counters that Meritz Financial is more interested in the financial profits that can be gained through liquidation than in the rehabilitation of Homeplus. MBK points out that Meritz has a structure that allows it to earn enormous profits in excess of the principal through the exercise of security rights and high-interest delinquent interest during the liquidation process, and argues that this is the reason for its passive attitude toward support. In response to this, Meritz counters that the interest on delinquent payments is only a figure assuming the worst case scenario, the actual possibility of recovery is unclear, and it is only a matter of risk management as a financial institution. Amid a tense war of nerves between both sides, the fate of Homeplus is rapidly approaching July 3, the deadline for approval of the rehabilitation plan set by the court.

More desperate voices are coming out from the field. The Homeplus Product Purchase Electronic Short-Term Bond Victim Committee criticized that the 500 billion won in support that Chairman Kim Byeong-joo had been claiming was focused on guarantees and collateral rather than actual cash injections, and called for substantial contributions of personal funds. They are concerned that the guarantee of major shareholders may result in forcing general creditors to sacrifice themselves, citing the fact that DIP financing is repaid ahead of existing bonds in the rehabilitation process. Labor unions and stores are also calling for a more urgent decision from major shareholders to prevent the worst-case scenario of bankruptcy, and are strongly demanding a responsible attitude from management.

Behind this incident, there is another variable: the Financial Supervisory Service's review of MBK sanctions. The authorities are closely examining whether the change in terms of redeemable convertible preferred stock (RCPS) during the Homeplus investment process infringed on the interests of investors and violated internal control obligations. Unusually, it has become more difficult for MBK to prove the legitimacy of its management, with prior notice of severe disciplinary action that even includes suspension of duties. This is why we cannot be free from criticism that the investment recovery-centered management of the past 10 years ultimately damaged corporate value and led to the catastrophe of the rehabilitation process. The market is now making a strict assessment of whether MBK is simply a capitalist or a true shareholder who takes responsibility for the company's growth.