Article: [D-eye] “In the end, it’s a self-inflicted damage”… New Jeans, the core of the appeal defeat
Source: Dispatch
"Damage brought on by themselves"
The court reviewing the appeal for the injunction stated, "The damages were caused by the New Jeans members themselves," and that "a contract cannot be terminated based on only their subjective claims," dismissing the appeal.
On June 17, the Seoul High Court Civil Division 25-2 held a hearing on the appeal against the decision to uphold the injunction "to preserve the agency’s position and prohibit advertising contracts, etc."
The court upheld the lower court’s ruling, saying, "A contract cannot be terminated based solely on subjective claims. The exclusive contract remains valid, and independent activities are not allowed."
Here is a summary of New Jeans’ claims and the court’s reasons for rejecting them.
First, New Jeans’ claims:
1. New Jeans was unfairly mistreated. In particular, Min Hee-jin was a fundamental premise of their exclusive contract, yet she was subjected to an unjust audit and dismissed as CEO. This broke the relationship of trust with ADOR. Therefore, terminating the exclusive contract is lawful.
2. If the injunction is upheld, HYBE only suffers financial loss, but New Jeans faces irreversible “harm” due to a prolonged hiatus. Their freedom to work and create art is being infringed.
Did the court accept New Jeans’ claims? Below is the court’s ruling — a rebuttal to every point from “broken trust” to “damages.”
① Breakdown of Trust → Rejected
The court clearly stated that New Jeans were trainees from Source Music’s "Team N." For example, Minji was selected in 2018 — even before Min Hee-jin joined HYBE in 2019.
“There is no evidence that Min Hee-jin was involved in selecting the remaining members. NewJeans were Source Music trainees, and Min Hee-jin’s involvement hasn’t been proven.” (Court)
The court also pointed out that the exclusive contract contains no clauses related to Min Hee-jin. There is no “key man” clause requiring her to be the sole producer.
“Min Hee-jin is not a core premise of the contract. HYBE is the one that discovered NewJeans and established a dedicated company for them, investing 21 billion won. The key party is HYBE, not Min Hee-jin.”
Starting in December 2023, Min Hee-jin began demanding changes to the shareholder agreement with HYBE, while simultaneously planning to take NewJeans with her and seeking investors.
“She tried to break away from HYBE with NewJeans and pressured HYBE to sell its shares. Min Hee-jin herself is now dismantling the very contract structure she helped form.”
The court concluded that her dismissal was “a result of her own actions” and that NewJeans’ disappointment in ADOR or desire to get Min back does not constitute a “breakdown of trust.”
② Binding Power of Exclusive Contract → Accepted
Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of the contract state that termination is only possible if a party seriously breaches obligations.
New Jeans and ADOR agreed that if a member unilaterally breaks the contract, they must pay not only damages but also a penalty (average monthly revenue for the last 2 years × remaining months of contract).
Given the nature of idol training, involving heavy investment, support, and development, a unilateral contract break would cause significant harm to the agency.
"The contract was signed through mutual negotiation. Following the exclusive contract is New Jeans’ clear obligation," the court stated.
“New Jeans’ success was made possible by the dedication of ADOR staff and others. That’s why the contract was made — and they must uphold it.”
The court emphasized that subjective reasons alone do not justify breaking a contract or walking away from it.
③ Change of Circumstances → Rejected
New Jeans claimed a “major change in circumstances” since Min Hee-jin was no longer producing, thus justifying contract termination.
But the court reiterated: Min Hee-jin was not a core premise of the exclusive contract. Even if she was part of the background context, she wasn’t essential.
It pointed out the contradiction of supporting someone who is actively breaking the contract structure. New Jeans’ position, the court said, went against the principle of good faith.
“Their claim violates the very good-faith principle (trust and sincerity) that underpins the change of circumstances doctrine.”
The absence of Min Hee-jin wasn’t seen as serious enough to justify breaking the contract. The rest of New Jeans’ arguments were also judged as largely subjective.
④ Other Claims → Rejected
Claims that ILLIT failed to greet them were dismissed. “CCTV footage confirms a greeting was made. There’s no evidence that ILLIT ignored them intentionally or that the manager said ‘ignore them.’”
The court acknowledged ADOR’s efforts to protect New Jeans — including manager interviews, limiting artist interactions, and public statements.
Regarding the PR employee allegedly downplaying New Jeans’ achievements, the court said HYBE promised prevention steps like employee education and excluding the staffer from future PR.
ILLIT plagiarism claims were also rejected. The court found no clear evidence of blatant concept copying and said it had no bearing on the contract’s validity.
Even the trainee-era footage released by Dispatch was deemed irrelevant to a breakdown of trust. ADOR had repeatedly requested deletion of those clips.
"ADOR even hired a contractor to try to remove the leaked footage. The other reasons New Jeans cited don’t support the claim of broken trust either."
⑤ Need for Preservation → Accepted
If New Jeans proceeds with independent activities, ADOR will lose the benefit of its investment, while New Jeans enjoys the full rewards. The court called this “an unreasonable outcome.”
Citing New Jeans’ solo performance in Hong Kong in March, the court warned it could mislead the public into believing the contract was terminated and damage the brand image.
"New Jeans complains of ‘harm,’ but it’s harm they caused by refusing to fulfill a valid contract. ADOR, in fact, is the one being harmed."
The court pointed out the irony of New Jeans succeeding overseas without ADOR’s management while claiming they can't perform with ADOR’s support.
On the argument of freedom of occupation and artistic expression: "As long as New Jeans abides by the contract, they’re free to pursue entertainment — in fact, it works to their benefit."
The High Court rejected all of New Jeans’ appeals. Until the exclusive contract lawsuit is fully settled, ADOR’s management rights remain valid. Independent activities by New Jeans are still prohibited.
In addition, last month the court approved ADOR’s request for indirect enforcement: if members pursue solo activities without ADOR’s approval, they must pay 1 billion KRW (approx. $720,000 USD) per incident per member.
