JOIN OUR WHATSAPP CHANNEL
ADOR Vs NewJeans: Court schedules next hearing on exclusive contract dispute for June 5; know what happened at first trial
The legal dispute between ADOR and NewJeans remains unresolved as both sides hold firm. With no agreement reached, the court has set a second hearing date. Read more!
The long-standing legal battle between ADOR and NewJeans over the validity of the group’s exclusive contract continues, with both sides refusing to budge. The first hearing for the lawsuit, filed by ADOR against the members of NewJeans, took place on the morning of April 3rd at the Seoul Central District Court’s 41st Civil Agreement Division. While fans closely monitored the proceedings, the courtroom session concluded without a resolution, pushing the second trial date to June 5.
This lawsuit stems from a deepening rift between the members of NewJeans and their agency, ADOR, a subsidiary of HYBE. The conflict initially surfaced in November of last year when the group accused ADOR of breaching their trust and declared their intent to terminate their exclusive contracts. ADOR swiftly responded by filing legal action, asserting that the contracts remain legally binding and that the members have no grounds for termination.
A major point of speculation before the hearing was whether the NewJeans members would personally appear in court. While civil lawsuits do not require the presence of plaintiffs or defendants, NewJeans had previously attended an injunction hearing on March 7, where they pleaded their case and expressed their refusal to continue under ADOR’s management. However, the members were absent from the April 3rd session.
Despite their absence, the hearing garnered major media attention. Numerous domestic and international news outlets were present at the courthouse, reflecting the global impact of the controversy. Fans of NewJeans, some carrying banners and signs with messages like “NJZ Fighting!” also gathered outside the courthouse in a show of support for the group.
With only the legal representatives of both parties present, the hearing proceeded as an oral argument session. ADOR’s lawyers reinforced their stance that the members of NewJeans remain under an active and valid exclusive contract, and that the agency is well within its legal rights to enforce it. They emphasized that the group was formed under ADOR’s guidance and that their contractual obligations should be upheld.
On the other hand, NewJeans’ legal team countered by stating that the trust between the artists and the agency had completely deteriorated, rendering the continuation of the contract untenable. Their argument was based on the principle that an exclusive contract cannot function effectively if the relationship between the involved parties has been irreparably damaged.
In an attempt to address concerns over the group's future, ADOR proposed that they could assign a highly capable producer, comparable to Min Hee Jin, to oversee NewJeans’ activities. They argued that the group’s continued success does not solely depend on Min Hee Jin and that another producer could effectively manage their creative direction and promotions. However, NewJeans’ representatives dismissed the suggestion outright. The firm response from NewJeans’ legal team underscored the members' continued resistance against ADOR’s management, reinforcing their desire to sever ties with the agency permanently.
At the heart of the legal battle is the question of whether a “breakdown of trust” is sufficient grounds for contract termination. ADOR’s argument revolves around the claim that a contractual agreement remains binding despite interpersonal conflicts, whereas NewJeans’ representatives argue that a contract cannot be sustained if trust, one of its foundational elements, has completely collapsed.
The April 3rd hearing lasted for approximately 20 minutes, with neither party making any concessions. Given the complexity of the case and the arguments presented, NewJeans’ legal team requested additional time to submit further rebuttals and supporting evidence. They also cited the ongoing process of filing an objection to ADOR’s previously approved injunction as a reason for needing more preparation time.
As a result, the court has scheduled a second hearing for the lawsuit on June 5, where both sides will once again present their arguments and potentially provide additional documentation to support their claims.
