Court Sides with Adore in Exclusive Contract Dispute with NewJeans

TLDR:

On March 21, the Seoul Central District Court ruled fully in favor of Adore in its legal battle with girl group NewJeans (NJZ) over the termination of their exclusive contract. The court granted Adore’s request for an injunction preventing the members from independently signing advertising or entertainment-related contracts, stating that NewJeans cannot pursue independent activities.

Key Points from the Ruling:

• All of NewJeans' claims for terminating the contract were rejected.

• Adore's claims were fully accepted.

Court's Reasoning:

• There was insufficient evidence that Adore breached any major obligations under the exclusive contract.

• Claims of broken trust or irreparable damage to the relationship were also deemed unproven.

• Min Hee-jin's dismissal was considered an internal management decision by Adore and not a valid reason to terminate the contract.

• Issues involving the Dolphin Kidnapping Group, plagiarism allegations, and member comments did not amount to breaches of contract.

On Adore’s Efforts:

The court emphasized that Adore invested significant resources and took on a high risk in developing and promoting the members of NewJeans when they were unknown trainees. If the group were allowed to unilaterally walk away from the contract just two years after debuting, Adore would suffer serious financial and operational losses.

===

All of the reasons for termination of the exclusive contract claimed by NewJeans have not been accepted — Adore's claims have all been accepted.

“It is difficult to see that the reasons for termination due to breach of exclusive contract obligations and breakdown of trust relationship have been proven.”

“Full support and investment in an unknown trainee at the risk of high failure... In case of unilateral departure, the company suffers losses.”

A court has ruled that girl group NewJeans (recently promoting under the name NJZ), which is currently in a legal dispute with their agency Adore over their exclusive contract, cannot pursue independent activities.

On March 21, the 50th Civil Agreement Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Sang-hoon) ruled in favor of Adore, granting their application for an injunction to “preserve the status of the agency and prohibit the signing of advertising contracts, etc.” against the five members of NewJeans. The decision was made to fully accept Adore’s request.

The court stated:

“It is difficult to see how it has been sufficiently proven, based on the claims and materials submitted so far by the debtor (NewJeans), that the creditor (Adore) violated an important obligation under the exclusive contract, resulting in the termination of the exclusive contract, or that the mutual trust that formed the foundation of the exclusive contract was irreparably damaged as a result.”

In other words, the court did not accept any of the reasons for termination of the exclusive contract claimed by NewJeans.

Regarding NewJeans' argument that the dismissal of former Adore CEO Min Hee-jin constituted a breach of Adore’s obligations, the court clarified:

“It is a matter of the creditor's management judgment and has no direct relation to the producing work for the debtors.”

“It is difficult to see that there was a clause in the exclusive contract that Min Hee-jin must take charge of the producing work, or that that was the motive or purpose for signing the exclusive contract.”

As for the group's claim that Adore unilaterally ended its partnership with the advertising production company Dolphin Kidnapping Group, the court ruled:

“It is difficult to see that the creditor violated an important obligation under the exclusive contract simply because there was a dispute between Dolphin Kidnapping Group, which was not a party to the incident.”

The court also found that other cited reasons — such as the Ailitt plagiarism controversy and member Hani’s so-called ‘ignore’ remarks — were not sufficiently explained to constitute contract violations.

The ruling emphasized:

“The creditor has fulfilled most of the important obligations under the exclusive contract, such as the obligation to settle accounts, to the debtors.”

“It seems that the creditor was unable to perform management duties under the exclusive contract due to the debtors' unilateral notice of termination of the exclusive contract.”

It continued:

“Even if there were some shortcomings in fulfilling the obligations under the exclusive contract, it is difficult to conclude that the relationship of trust has been broken — especially considering that it has not been confirmed that no corrections were made despite the debtor's request for correction, or that the violation of obligations was repeated or continued for a long period of time.”

In addition, the court stated:

“The creditor has taken on a very high risk of failure and has provided full support and effort for a long time, and even invested a large amount of money, for the successful entertainment activities of the debtors who were then unknown trainees.”

“If the debtors, who have successfully gained popularity after their debut, unilaterally depart from the exclusive contract relationship after only two years, the creditor will suffer enormous losses.”

Previously, the five members of NewJeans began conducting activities independently in November 2024, claiming that their contracts with Adore had been terminated due to Adore’s violations of the exclusive contract.

In response, Adore filed an injunction against the five members of NewJeans in January 2025, requesting that the court prohibit them from independently signing advertising contracts.

Later, Adore expanded the scope of the injunction to include a prohibition on all entertainment-related activities, including music activities such as songwriting, composing, and performing.

SOURCE: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20250321087100004?input=1195m