On April 3, the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Agreement Division 41 (Presiding Judge Jeong Hoe-il) will hold the first hearing for the main lawsuit filed by ADOR against the five NewJeans members to confirm the validity of their exclusive contracts.
Previously, on March 21, the court granted ADOR’s injunction request, which sought to maintain its status as the members’ agency and prohibit the members from engaging in entertainment activities outside of ADOR.
NewJeans had presented 11 reasons for contract termination, including:
- Concern over a production void following former CEO Min Hee-jin’s dismissal
- Comments by former HYBE CEO Park Ji-won about giving NewJeans a “long break”
- Creative disputes between ADOR and Dolphiners Films director Shin Woo-seok
- A May 2023 HYBE report that allegedly read, “Drop NewJeans and start fresh”
- Alleged identity damage caused by Belift Lab’s girl group ILLIT
- A Belift Lab manager allegedly telling ILLIT to “ignore Hanni”
- Leaked trainee content related to NewJeans
- A HYBE PD allegedly downplaying NewJeans’ success
- HYBE’s album “pushing” tactics allegedly hurting the group’s performance
- Alleged retaliatory audit against Min Hee-jin fostering negative sentiment
- HYBE CEO Lee Jae-sang allegedly stating he would “tarnish NewJeans and take down both them and Min Hee-jin together.”
However, the court did not recognize any of these claims as valid grounds for contract termination.
“Korea Wants to Turn Us into Revolutionaries”: NewJeans Reacts, But Misses Court Appearance
After the injunction ruling, NewJeans voiced dismay in foreign media interviews, including TIME and BBC Korea, saying, “We are disappointed with the court’s decision. It feels like Korea wants to turn us into revolutionaries.”
Following their Hong Kong concert, the group announced a halt to all activities. While all five members attended the earlier injunction hearing, they were absent from the April 3 main hearing.
ADOR argued the group’s unilateral termination notice lacked both procedural and legal basis, and emphasized that their Hong Kong performance, prepared without Min Hee-jin, proved that the claim “NewJeans cannot exist without her” was contradictory.
NewJeans’ legal team countered, “Even if Min Hee-jin’s presence was crucial, no viable alternatives were proposed. ADOR under new management has changed entirely, it’s no longer the company NewJeans originally trusted.”
Court Questions NewJeans’ Interpretation of “Trust Breakdown”
The presiding judge raised key concerns about the definition of trust breakdown in this case, “There have been cases where artists sought contract termination without receiving proper settlements or achieving success, but trust here seems tied to whether NewJeans would have even trained under ADOR without Min Hee-jin. Did I misunderstand? Typically, trust breakdowns involve unpaid settlements, but this is a unique case. We’ll carefully consider how to assess trust in long-term management and production contracts.”
The judge further commented that while trust breakdowns are typically tied to settlement and financial issues, NewJeans’ claim is uniquely tied to production and managerial trust, adding, “We must carefully consider how to evaluate trust in long-term creative and management partnerships.”
Although the court explored mediation possibilities, the two parties remain far apart. ADOR expressed openness to resolution, but NewJeans’ legal team made it clear, “Currently, the members are not in a position to consider agreement.”
The second hearing for the exclusive contract lawsuit between ADOR and NewJeans is scheduled for June 5. The injunction appeal hearing is set for April 9.
Attention is now focused on whether NewJeans members will appear in court again to speak directly, as they did during the injunction hearings, and whether the injunction decision will be overturned.