ADOR v. NewJeans: Lawsuit to Confirm Validity of Exclusive Contract – 2nd Hearing

The 41st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jeong Hoe-il) held the second hearing in the lawsuit for confirmation of exclusive contract validity filed by ADOR against the five NewJeans members (Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein).

“The NewJeans members unreasonably terminated the exclusive contract and are retroactively searching for grounds for termination.”

“The termination of the exclusive contract is valid because ADOR failed to properly fulfill its duty to protect NewJeans and take appropriate measures after HYBE executives seized control of management.”

Filed a total of 15 requests for clarification against ADOR’s side. The court accepted the following 3 of these:

“The plaintiffs said they had already explained everything, but the materials actually submitted are considerably inadequate. If they met with (composer) Hitchhiker, they should disclose specifically what was discussed and to what extent they consulted.”

Ordered ADOR’s side to respond to matters that would be relevant to the exclusive contract dispute.

“A response is needed as it is closely related to whether the right to terminate the management contract has arisen. We need answers on what measures were taken, and if no particular measures were taken, whether there were legitimate reasons for not taking them.”

“Regarding protective measures, we need a written response indicating whether the board of directors proactively held strategy meetings on copying rights before the defendants’ request—and if so, disclosing them, and if not, stating the legitimate reasons for not doing so.”

Filed a request for document transmission to review the records of the approximately 2.5 billion won damages lawsuit filed by Source Music against former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin.

“It has been mentioned as illegally obtained evidence, but the issue is computer files, and all providers consented. The computer is company property, so the contents of computer files cannot be considered illegal evidence.”

“The evidence you want to see is not specified—what materials are you referring to?”

“Among the evidence submitted in the Western District Court case, there are materials we claim are illegally obtained evidence. These are private conversation contents arbitrarily downloaded from the server during an illegal audit, which may be in violation of the law. We have filed a motion with the Western District Court not to admit them as evidence.”

Set the third hearing date for July 24, 2025.

“Do you have any intention to settle before the next date? The defendants (NewJeans) said no last time, but from the court’s perspective, we would like to recommend it. It’s unfortunate.”

Maintained their position that settlement is not possible, saying “The relationship of trust has completely broken down, and we believe we have crossed the river. We would have to consult with our clients again, but it will not be easy.”

Maintained their existing position, saying “If the court reaches a conclusion, whether on the merits or the injunction, settlement will be easier after that.”