On October 30, the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Division 41, presided over by Judge Jung Hoe-il, ruled entirely in favor of ADOR in the exclusive contract validity lawsuit filed against the five members of NewJeans. The group is also required to cover all litigation costs.
In its ruling, the court stated, “It is difficult to conclude that ADOR violated any significant obligations under the exclusive contract or that the trust between the parties has irreparably broken down.”
Unusually for a civil case, the court spent around 40 minutes reading the verdict in full, addressing each of the 10 claims raised by NewJeans — and rejecting every one of them.
1. The dismissal of Min Hee-jin
The court found no basis for NewJeans’ claim that removing Min Hee-jin from her CEO position created a management vacuum. The ruling noted that “the contract does not stipulate that Min Hee-jin must remain CEO to manage NewJeans,” and that she was still eligible to work as an in-house director and producer but declined ADOR’s offer to continue.
2. HYBE’s management responsibilities
NewJeans claimed that ADOR failed its management duties after Min’s dismissal. The court disagreed, noting that ADOR continued producing albums, preparing performances, planning tours, and handling promotions during that time.
3. The legitimacy of Min Hee-jin’s audit and dismissal
The court ruled that HYBE’s audit of Min Hee-jin was legitimate and not retaliatory. Citing KakaoTalk messages between Min and former ADOR vice president Lee Sang-woo, the court said Min had “planned a public campaign and legal action to separate NewJeans and ADOR from HYBE.” The court stated this justified HYBE’s decision to begin an internal audit.
4. The ‘Dispatch’ trainee video leak
The court ruled that the leak of trainee footage from Source Music did not constitute a breach of trust, noting that HYBE had acted promptly by requesting takedowns and sending formal notices.
5. Alleged defamation of NewJeans
NewJeans claimed HYBE’s PR team downplayed the group’s achievements. The court dismissed this, saying the correction of inaccurate media reports did not amount to defamation.
6. ILLIT plagiarism claim
The court rejected claims that ILLIT had plagiarized NewJeans’ work, stating that while there were similarities, there was insufficient evidence of copying.
7. Hanni’s “Ignore Her” incident
The court found that the “ignore her” remark originated with Min Hee-jin, not ILLIT’s management. CCTV footage confirmed ILLIT members bowed to Hanni, and no evidence of verbal abuse was found.
8. Dolphiners Films video removal
HYBE’s request for the Dolphiners Films production team to delete the ETA (Director’s Cut) video was ruled legitimate, as the contract stipulated prior approval was required for posting.
9. Album suppression allegations
The court dismissed claims that HYBE intentionally limited NewJeans’ album distribution, calling it part of Min Hee-jin’s “strategic conflict” against the company, not a proven act.
10. “Abandon New and Start Fresh” internal report
NewJeans cited an internal HYBE report as proof that the company was replacing them. The court, however, found no negative content in the document and pointed out that Min Hee-jin never objected to it at the time.
The court also highlighted HYBE’s ₩21 billion investment in NewJeans, stating that “it is unreasonable to believe the company would abandon a group it has heavily supported.”
In conclusion, the court reaffirmed, “ADOR did not violate any major contractual obligations, and the alleged loss of trust cannot be acknowledged.”
This ruling confirms that NewJeans remains legally bound to ADOR. The agency now holds the legal authority to prevent the group from undertaking independent activities without its approval.
Shortly after the verdict, NewJeans’ legal representatives from Sejong Law Firm announced their intention to appeal: “While we respect the court’s decision, we cannot return to ADOR given the irreparable breakdown in trust. We will file an appeal immediately.”
The decision marks a significant turning point in the high-profile dispute between the K-pop group and their label, potentially reshaping future artist-agency relationships within the Korean entertainment industry.
Sources: Nate
You must be logged in to post a comment.