Summary
Highlights
On October 30th, 2005, the Soul court ruled entirely in favor of ADOR in its high-profile contract dispute with NewJeans, rejecting all of NewJeans' arguments and confirming that their exclusive contract remains valid. The court stated that ADOR did not violate the agreement by dismissing former CEO Min Hee-jin, noting the contract contained no clause requiring her to stay in the position.
Typically, civil rulings only announce the decision briefly, but in this case, the court unusually spent about 40 minutes reading out detailed reasoning for each issue, a point noted by multiple articles as being unusual.
The court dismissed NewJeans' claim that firing CEO Min Hee-jin created a management vacuum, stating that removing her did not necessarily mean a management gap occurred. Her role as CEO was not an essential condition of the contract, and ADOR even offered her a continued producer role and re-appointment as an internal director, which she refused.
The court ruled Min Hee-jin's dismissal was justified and not the result of an unfair audit. KakaoTalk messages between Min Hee-jin and a former ADOR Vice President were cited as direct evidence, showing her intent to separate ADOR from HYBE and her plans to make NewJeans independent through media and legal strategies.
The court dismissed claims that leaked trainee videos by Dispatch damaged trust. It noted that two videos were deleted, others blurred, and HYBE selected a content moderation agency, requested explanations from Source Music, and sent an official notice to Dispatch, demonstrating ADOR fulfilled its obligations. This showed Min Hee-jin had no role in setting up NewJeans.
The claim that HYBE's PR staff downplayed NewJeans' success was dismissed. The court found that correcting inaccurate sales data was not an act of defamation, referencing a journalist who incorrectly reported 1 million sales for NewJeans' Japanese debut album when it was significantly less.
The plagiarism claim regarding I'LL-IT was rejected. The court ruled that while there were some similarities, it could not be deemed copying, as girl group concepts are not considered protected publicity or intellectual property rights.
The court found that the term 'ignored' originated from Min Hee-jin, not Danielle, during a KakaoTalk conversation. CCTV footage showed I'LL-IT members bowing to Danielle, making it difficult to conclude her personal rights were violated.
ADOR's request for the video team 'Dolphin Kidnappers' to remove the 'ETA Director's Cut' video was deemed justified, as the production contract required HYBE's prior consent for content posting.
Claims that HYBE engaged in 'album dumping' to disadvantage NewJeans were dismissed due to lack of evidence, with the court describing it as a tool used by Min Hee-jin to politically attack HYBE. The claim of bias from an internal report with the phrase 'abandon new and start a fresh' was also dismissed, as the full report contained no negative content about NewJeans.
The court ruled that ADOR did not breach its contractual obligations, and NewJeans' claim of destroyed trust was unfounded. The exclusive contract remains valid, and NewJeans must pay all legal costs. NewJeans announced their intent to appeal, with their law firm stating the trust relationship with ADOR has collapsed.
The verdict was predictable for anyone following the case closely, as Min Hee-jin's strategy was based more on narrative control than solid contractual grounds. The court methodically dismantled every claim, highlighting Min Hee-jin's premeditated intent to break away from HYBE.
The court noted that Min Hee-jin refrained from appearing publicly, instead pushing NewJeans members forward to create the impression HYBE was treating them unfairly while she sought potential investors. These actions were not seen as protecting the members.
The court emphasized HYBE invested 21.5 billion KRW in NewJeans and provided substantial support. It was deemed unreasonable to assume HYBE abandoned NewJeans to focus on another girl group, and maintaining the contract did not amount to coercion or infringement of personal rights.
Korean netizens expressed fury at Min Hee-jin, using terms like 'greed,' 'gaslighting,' and 'evil,' reflecting a massive shift in public sentiment. Commenters criticized the manipulation of teenage idols and parents for corporate gain, and the lack of reflection from those involved.
The video ends by questioning whether NewJeans truly understands the legal and professional consequences of continuing the fight, and if they can ever recover public trust by standing with someone the court and nation see as the architect of their downfall.