ADOR v. NewJeans: Immediate Appeal of ‘Injunction to Preserve Agency Status and Prohibit Advertising Contracts’ Rejected

D) Furthermore, the obligee repeatedly proposed to AD, immediately after AD was dismissed from the position of obligee’s CEO, to take charge of producing the obligors until the termination date of the exclusive contract in this case (Exhibits So-Gap No. 77, 78, 83, So-Eul No. 332), and AD was reappointed as an inside director of the obligee at the shareholders’ meeting on October 17, 2024 (Exhibit So-Gap No. 188). Nevertheless, AD rejected all of the obligee’s proposals and resigned from the position of inside director of the obligee around November 20, 2024. Even after negotiations between the obligee and AD broke down, the obligee actively sought new producers to take charge of producing the obligors, and some producers specifically indicated their willingness to take charge of producing the obligors. If it were acknowledged that the obligee had abandoned its obligation to produce the obligors, there might be room for the obligors to terminate the exclusive contract in this case; however, in this case, the fact that the obligee abandoned its obligation to produce the obligors has not been demonstrated. In a situation where AD rejected the obligee’s producing proposals as described above, despite the obligee’s active efforts to recruit producers for the obligors, the ‘relationship of trust between the obligee and the obligors’ cannot be considered to have broken down due to the circumstance that the obligors insist only on AD.

Rather, considering only the materials available to date, it is difficult to conclude that the AH members intentionally ignored obligor L or that the AH manager made such remarks; regarding the ‘ignore her’ incident, the obligee requested a meeting with the AH manager from AK, the agency of AH, around September 24, 2024 (Exhibit So-Gap No. 105), and explained to the obligors around September 25, 2024 and October 8, 2024 that ‘although we are making constant efforts to resolve the incident, we believe it is not appropriate to engage in active confrontation with AK when the facts have not been clearly confirmed, so for now we will minimize the obligors’ contact with other artists and ensure the management team always accompanies them’ (Exhibits So-Gap No. 101, So-Eul No. 124), and around November 27, 2024, a statement representing the obligors’ position was issued in the obligee’s name (Exhibit So-Eul No. 126); regarding the ‘AB PR representative remarks’ incident, the obligee immediately protested to AB upon becoming aware of the remarks (Exhibits So-Gap No. 111, 114, 117) and received promises from AB for preventive measures including staff training and exclusion of the relevant representative from X PR (Exhibits So-Gap No. 112, 118); the obligee also reviewed pursuing criminal complaints or reports regarding AB’s failure to retain CCTV footage related to the ‘ignore her’ incident and the AB PR representative’s remarks, but considering the legal firm’s advice that criminal complaints or reports would likely have very low effectiveness (Exhibit So-Gap No. 107) and the potential impact on the reputation and fame of the obligors, who are entertainers, if the obligee as their agency proceeded with criminal complaints or reports, it appears that criminal complaint or report procedures were not pursued; considering these points, it can be seen that the obligee took the best measures available at the time to protect the obligors regarding each of the above incidents.

B) The obligors also claim that the relationship of trust between the obligee and the obligors broke down because AH, which belongs to AK, copied X’s ‘concept’ and choreography practice videos from the obligors’ trainee days were disclosed through AF, yet the obligee did not respond appropriately. However, it is difficult to view that AH copying X’s ‘concept’ or AF disclosing videos from the obligors’ trainee days has a direct connection to the ‘relationship of trust between the obligee and the obligors’ upon which the exclusive contract in this case is based. Furthermore, considering only the materials available to date, it is difficult to conclude that AH comprehensively copied X’s ‘concept’; the obligee (then-CEO AD) protested to AB and AK regarding AH’s copying of X’s ‘concept’ through emails and press conferences on behalf of the obligors (Exhibit So-Eul No. 63), and even after the CEO change, the obligee requested AB around November 25, 2024 to delete materials related to the X project proposal and refrain from sharing them (Exhibit So-Gap No. 73); the obligee also reviewed pursuing damages claims or criminal complaints/reports against AK, but considering that taking such measures when plagiarism had not been clearly confirmed could rather hinder the obligors’ activities or reputation, it appears that such measures against AK were put on hold (Exhibit So-Gap No. 71); regarding the leak of videos from the obligors’ trainee days, the obligee protested to AC (Exhibit So-Gap No. 128-1) and requested deletion of the videos from AF through multiple emails (Exhibits So-Gap No. 123, 125, 126, So-Gap No. 128-2), and even entered into a separate service contract with a law firm to completely delete the videos distributed online (Exhibits So-Gap No. 129, 130); considering these points, it can be seen that the obligee took the best measures available at the time to protect the obligors in relation to each of the above incidents.