This resolute statement was the opening line of the press conference held by girl group NewJeans on the evening of Nov 28th in Gangnam, Seoul. Announced just two hours prior, the emergency press conference underscored the group’s urgency and determination. Perhaps to emphasize their resolve, NewJeans allowed for live streaming of the event, echoing former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin‘s impactful live-streamed press conferences. At the event, the five members presented a united front, showcasing their firm stance. However, questions remain. Are their claims legally enforceable?
During the press conference, NewJeans answered various questions. However, they struggled to provide a definitive response to one: “Have you undergone legal review?“
When asked, the members stated, “We terminate the contract because HYBE and ADOR violated it. We had sufficient discussions, sent a certified letter, and acted according to the terms outlined in that letter.”
Reporters pressed further, questioning whether the original contract included a clause stipulating that failure to respond within two weeks of raising an issue would result in termination. The group answered ambiguously, “Legal discussions are ongoing, and there hasn’t been a case like ours before.”
The press conference host clarified, “The legal review process is still underway.” This suggests that the announcement was not made following thorough legal counsel.
To terminate an exclusive contract, a series of legal steps must be followed, which often include applying for a preliminary injunction to suspend the contract’s validity. Once granted, the contract’s validity is immediately suspended, allowing individual activities and new contracts with other agencies. Responsibility and breaches are determined later in a main lawsuit. When asked about applying for such an injunction, NewJeans claimed it wasn’t necessary, “Since ADOR and HYBE violated the contract, and the termination renders the contract invalid, our future activities will not be affected. Therefore, we believe an injunction is unnecessary.”
However, such a precedent is rare. If NewJeans proceeds without legal approval, they risk being accused of contract breach. Some speculate that NewJeans might be attempting to provoke ADOR into initiating legal action, which could later justify claims of a breakdown in trust—a key factor in obtaining an injunction.
A major risk is a potential penalty lawsuit. Estimates suggest NewJeans could face penalties of up to 600 billion KRW. The scale depends on whether their actions are deemed breaches of contract. Independent activities without legal validation could result in increased penalties and damage their case.
Conversely, some legal experts support NewJeans’ approach. Lee Hyun-gon, a lawyer from Saeol Law Firm, noted, “The standout aspect of the press conference is their decision not to pursue an injunction. This is unprecedented. By not filing, NewJeans avoids being bound until a decision is reached, effectively forcing ADOR to file a lawsuit instead.“
However, such actions challenge the foundational principle of contracts as legally binding agreements.
Regarding this, ADOR refuted, “It is regrettable that they proceeded with a termination press conference without adequate review or waiting for a response to the certified letter. ADOR did not breach the contract, and claims of broken trust do not constitute valid grounds for termination.“
The conflict between NewJeans and ADOR has reached a critical point, making a legal battle inevitable. While NewJeans’ fandom remains strong, the controversy risks alienating neutral audiences.
Source: Daum
