The first hearing of the lawsuit filed by ADOR against the five members of NewJeans to confirm the validity of the exclusive contract has opened, and the court's responses are attracting attention.

On the 3rd, the first hearing of the lawsuit filed by ADOR against the five members of NewJeans was held in the 41st Division of the Civil Affairs of the Seoul Central District Court (Director General Jeong Hoe-il).

On the 21st, the 50th Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Justice Kim Sang-hoon) accepted and ruled on the provisional injunction filed by ADOR against the five members of NewJeans, which requested the 'protection of the planning company's position and the prohibition of contract signing, etc.'

According to the ruling, the court judged that it is difficult to conclude that ADOR has sufficiently violated significant obligations of the exclusive contract based solely on the claims and materials submitted by Kim Min-ji and others to date regarding ▲ the gap in producing caused by the dismissal of ADOR's CEO Min Hee-jin ▲ HYBE CEO Park Ji-won stating, 'Kim Min-ji and others will be given a long vacation' ▲ the dispute between Director Shin Woo-seok of Dolphin Kidnappers and ADOR ▲ the phrase 'New Jeans can be discarded and a new plan can be made' included in HYBE's May 10, 2023, music industry report ▲ the damage to the uniqueness of NewJeans of ILLIT, which is affiliated with Belift Lab, and the phrase included ▲ Hanni hearing 'ignore' remarks from a manager affiliated with Belift Lab ▲ the leakage of photos and videos of trainees such as Kim Min-ji ▲ the remarks made by HYBE's PR officer disparaging the achievements of NewJeans ▲ the devaluation of the achievements of NewJeans due to HYBE's album push practices ▲ and the remark made by HYBE's Chief Strategy Officer Lee Jae-sang that he is considering 'damaging the brand value of NewJeans to the extent of bringing down Min Hee-jin and NewJeans together.'

In response, the legal representatives of the five members raised an objection, stating that they would suspend activities after the Hong Kong performance held on the 23rd of last month. In particular, NewJeans did not hide their discomfort in interviews with foreign media regarding the acceptance of the provisional injunction, saying, 'We were disappointed with the court's ruling,' and 'It seems that Korea wants to make us revolutionaries.'

During the provisional hearing held last month, the five members who attended the court did not appear in court that day. ADOR maintains that the exclusive contract remains valid, as the procedural and substantive grounds were insufficient when NewJeans unilaterally notified the termination of the exclusive contract signed in April 2022. On the other hand, NewJeans argues that the termination notice was legal, as trust was broken after the ousting of former CEO Min Hee-jin, who successfully operated ADOR.

ADOR noted, 'NewJeans members say they cannot perform without former CEO Min Hee-jin, but it does not make sense that NewJeans cannot exist without Min Hee-jin. ADOR is a subsidiary of the industry leader HYBE, so it is unreasonable to say that they cannot find another producer. Given that the members independently prepared and successfully completed the Hong Kong performance, claiming that only Min Hee-jin can do (the producing) is contradictory.'

NewJeans asserted, 'Regardless of how important a role former CEO Min Hee-jin played and the meaning of her absence, there has been no communication about preparations for alternatives in the absence of Min. With the ousting of Min Hee-jin and the arrival of new management, ADOR now has fundamentally different values than when the past contract was signed. While each individual reason may not constitute a valid reason for terminating the contract, it concludes that trust has been broken to the extent that it cannot be restored.'

The court asked both parties whether an agreement or mediation was possible and mentioned the 'breakdown of the trust relationship' claimed by NewJeans. The court stated, 'There has been a case where the matter of requesting termination of the contract related to the settlement was not received even once and did not float. The trust relationship may not have existed, as NewJeans may not have even been ADOR's trainees without former CEO Min. Am I thinking incorrectly?' and added, 'Usually, a breakdown of trust is when settlements are not provided, but this case is unique, so I will consider how to view the trust relationship in long-term contract management producing.'

Meanwhile, the second hearing is scheduled to be held on June 5.

[OSEN]