As NewJeans members showed a stance that they could not return to ADOR without former CEO Min Hee-jin, ADOR rebutted this by citing the Hong Kong Complex concert. The court also appeared somewhat confused by NewJeans' claims.

On the morning of the 3rd, the first hearing related to ADOR's lawsuit against NewJeans members for confirming the validity of their exclusive contract was held at the Seoul Central District Court, Civil Division 41 (Director General Jeong Hoe-il). Unlike the provisional injunction lawsuit, NewJeans members did not attend court that day.

With the legal representatives of both sides attending court, NewJeans' legal representative noted, "Please consider whether NewJeans can trust ADOR, where all the management has been replaced. It's not just the absence of former CEO Min Hee-jin; we believe it's important that there was no communication regarding the alternatives added to that situation," claiming a breakdown of the trust relationship.

Furthermore, they added, "I believe the individual reasons for termination mentioned by ADOR are significant in themselves. Even if each reason does not constitute an independent reason for termination, the conclusion drawn when they all come together is that there has been a breakdown in trust to the extent that the relationship cannot be restored."

However, ADOR showed a somewhat unfair attitude toward NewJeans' claims. ADOR stated, "NewJeans emphasizes that they cannot engage in entertainment activities without former CEO Min Hee-jin. While it is true that Min contributed to the existence of NewJeans, it doesn't make sense to say that NewJeans cannot exist without Min Hee-jin."

In particular, ADOR noted, "It is unreasonable to say that we cannot provide other producers since ADOR is a leading HYBE affiliate in the industry. NewJeans recently prepared for and successfully concluded a performance in Hong Kong without Min Hee-jin's help. This shows that NewJeans' claim that only Min can do this is contradictory. Once they unilaterally declared the termination of the contract and closed the door to dialogue and communication, there was nothing the company could do."

In relation to this, the court also finds itself in a confusing situation. The court stated, "There has been a case where a settlement could not be received and an issue arose to terminate the settlement contract. The trust relationship would not have allowed NewJeans to even train as ADOR's trainees without former CEO Min; if I knew what kind of person that individual was, I wouldn't even consider training there, right?"

They expressed, "I will ponder how to view the trust relationship — whether it should be considered alongside management or producing in a typical long-term contract. Usually, a breakdown in trust occurs when settlements are never made, not going well, and trainees must find other means to survive, thus hindering proper training. However, this is a very special case."

The second hearing date for the main lawsuit between ADOR and NewJeans has been set for June 5 at 11:10 a.m.

Meanwhile, NewJeans is currently unable to engage in individual activities. On the 21st of last month, the Seoul Central District Court, Civil Division 50 (Chief Judge Kim Sang-hoon) accepted ADOR's provisional injunction request and made a ruling in favor. In response, NewJeans has filed an objection to the court's provisional decision.

[Photo] OSEN DB

[OSEN]