Where Does This Leave New Jeans

EDITED PART ARE HIGHLIGHTED BELOW

After Korean Entertainment Management Association's (KEMA) statements and ADOR's injunction to ask the court to confirm the validity of the contract, where does this leave New Jeans? What does ADOR really mean in the lawsuit?

First, let's read KEMA's statement.

 "An Act That Shakes the Foundation" [Full Statement]

Recently, the dispute between ADOR and NewJeans has intensified, adversely affecting our popular culture and arts industry in various ways. Regarding this issue, our association expresses the feelings of frustration felt by the industry workers due to the group NewJeans, the problems with the exclusive contract, and the public's perspective.

We present this statement with the hope that our popular culture and arts industry can once again leap forward from the standpoint of those involved in the industry.

Our popular culture and arts industry operates on a foundation of mutual trust, where the exclusive contracts between artists and their agencies are respected. This foundation is built upon decades of consideration and trust between artists and entertainment agencies, meaning that just because an issue arises does not automatically warrant contract termination.

However, the stance taken by NewJeans, ignoring all procedures, can only be interpreted as having no intention or consideration from the outset to maintain the contract. Our legal system fundamentally aims to protect contracts that have been established, and when it comes to the stage of contract termination, it deals with disputes by holding parties accountable.

Therefore, the significance lies in protecting the contract until it reaches complete termination, making the current claim by NewJeans for contract termination baseless.

Furthermore, the claim of contract nullification through such unilateral demands for termination can severely impact the trust in exclusive contracts overall. The relationship between an artist and an agency is not merely an employment relationship but a partnership where business is conducted.

Under an exclusive contract, the artist must do their utmost to utilize their talents and cooperate with the agency's activities, while the agency must support various activities to maximize the artist's talents. When such a dispute occurs, the claim that a contract can be terminated merely by declaration has a fatal impact on the Korean popular culture and arts industry, which involves long-term contracts, even extending back to the trainee period.

If anyone could terminate a contract by mere declaration, how could one ensure the validity of exclusive contracts, and who would invest based on such uncertain contracts? In this context, contract termination should be approached with extreme caution, discussed under the premise of maintaining and improving the contract.

Lastly, our industry, especially concerning popular singers, has operated under the principle of 'investment first, return later' from the past to the present. Once an agency has made an initial investment, they inevitably become the weaker party in the contract. Agencies that have invested in nurturing new talents have the utmost task to protect these artists until they generate profits exceeding the investment. In other words, when disputes occur between artists and agencies, the agency can only hope for the maintenance and preservation of the contract from the weaker position.

However, current laws do not consider this agency perspective at all. Particularly, in cases of malicious contract termination, there are no actions available to maintain the contract aside from ultimately seeking damages. From this perspective, the current approach by NewJeans can be seen as a very harmful method that could shake the foundation of our popular culture and arts industry. Therefore, our association hopes that NewJeans will retract their current stance and engage in dialogue with the company, sincerely wishing for a proper resolution to this dispute, and fervently hoping it does not escalate into the worst scenario.

==

This is not a lawsuit AGAINST NEW JEANS. This is just asking the court to formally declare that the contract is still valid.

1- ADOR’s statement is a warning that if NewJeans pursue independent activities, they’ll sue anyone—from broadcasters to agencies—who works with New Jeans directly.

2- New Jeans move is seen by some, probably by themselves too, that they are groundbreakers, courageous, and smart. But to the investors and the industry, they are just stupid and arrogant.

3- If things proceed as NewJeans stated in the press conference, it would result in K-pop being unsustainable in the future.

4- Even if MHJ wins against HYBE, it doesn't mean New Jeans will. They are refusing dialogue with ADOR, while ADOR keeps reaching out. For the court, ADOR is doing its part. New Jeans is not.

5- New Jeans will now have to countersue if they want to be able to do activities.

6- ADOR puts the responsibility of filing to terminate and the burden of proof back to New Jeans.

FROM A Lawyer Go Sang-rok's Statement

Comment about New Jeans' demands:

• Even without concrete proof of MHJ's tampering process with NewJeans, what's already exposed in the media somewhat substantiates it. Judges are human too, so they will try to make understandable rulings.

• Even if the statement "Ignore it" was actually made, it's hard to see that the manager has an upper hand in the relationship compared to Hani, making it a legally unreasonable claim.

• Even if we consider [the internal document] legitimate, just as Min Hee-jin won her case by arguing she sought to usurp but didn't proceed to execution, the same judgment would apply to HYBE. It's merely an individual jotting down personal thoughts, and even if HYBE considered abandoning NewJeans, they didn't execute the plan.