This article was displayed on the ChosunBiz MoneyMove (MM) site at 4:32 p.m. on Aug. 11, 2026.
Baek Seohyeon, CEO of Celestra(352770) (formerly Clinomics), a KOSDAQ-listed company undergoing delisting procedures, has been accused of breach of trust and violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, among other charges. The allegation is that just before Celestra entered delisting procedures due to a disclaimer of opinion, company funds flowed to related parties.
According to the capital markets industry on the 11th, a complaint against Baek was filed with the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office last week.
In April last year, Celestra failed to obtain an audit opinion for 2024 and entered delisting procedures. Along with business performance and financial deterioration, concerns over the recoverability of lending to a subsidiary hampered the audit. A bankruptcy filing followed in November last year, and in June this year, delisting was decided in the eligibility review. However, the delisting process is currently on hold as Celestra has filed for an injunction to suspend the effectiveness of the delisting decision.
Baek is suspected of having prioritized making whole the investment funds of associates ahead of the occurrence of a delisting reason for Celestra. On April 4 last year, when Celestra disclosed that it had failed to obtain an audit opinion, investors with a special relationship to Baek recovered their investments.
At the time, Celestra accepted early redemption requests for the 4th and 5th tranches of convertible bonds (CB) worth 4 billion won and 5.5 billion won, respectively. Kim, CEO of Gageumnongsan, an investor in the 4th tranche CB, was then serving as head of management planning at Celestra, and Lee, CEO of Domin8, which invested in the 5th tranche CB, was an inside director at Celestra. Both companies were classified as related parties because key executives were concurrently serving at Celestra. In particular, the 5th tranche CB was issued in March last year, a month before a delisting reason arose for Celestra, meaning the investment was recovered just one month after investment.
An industry official said, "Early redemption requests for Celestra's other CBs were not accepted, and only related parties' CBs were redeemed," and added, "At a time when Celestra needed to recover asset to remain a going concern, it effectively allocated cash in priority to a specific transaction counterparty."
There was also lending with uncertain recovery during this period. Questions have been raised over whether company asset was siphoned off in this regard.
In the second quarter of last year, Celestra extended lending of 1 billion won to ENPLUS, a KOSDAQ-listed company. But ENPLUS, like Celestra at the time, had received a disclaimer of opinion and has now been given an improvement period ahead of a delisting review. Considering ENPLUS's financial condition, aside from the 300 million won that has been repaid so far, the remaining 700 million won is unlikely to be repaid.
The suspicions surrounding Baek are expected to affect Celestra's delisting and rehabilitation going forward. Celestra applied for rehabilitation proceedings in September last year, and the commencement of proceedings was decided in June this year. Baek is serving as the rehabilitation manager. However, given Celestra's current financial situation, rehabilitation is likely to be terminated and bankruptcy to proceed.
If bankruptcy proceeds, related parties of Baek who recovered their investments in advance would have effectively avoided investment losses due to bankruptcy.
At the same time, Celestra's management control is in jeopardy. Due to Baek's debt relationship, the largest shareholder's equity in Celestra has reportedly been provisionally seized. Given this situation, the chances that the court will grant the injunction to suspend the effectiveness of the delisting decision appear slim.
Multiple attempts were made to reach Baek for comment on the allegations of breach of trust and violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, but there was no answer.