ANN/THE KOREA HERALD – The Seoul Central District Court ruled Friday in favour of Ador in its legal dispute with girl group NewJeans, temporarily barring the group from pursuing independent activities under its new name, NJZ.
NewJeans began independent activities after ending their contracts with Ador in November, citing a breach of exclusivity. In January, Ador filed an injunction to block the group’s solo activities and assert its role as their management agency.
The court approved Ador’s request for an injunction to prohibit the five members of NewJeans from entering into advertising contracts or conducting promotions independently, acknowledging the K-pop agency’s ongoing status as the group’s legal agency.
“In cases where mutual trust between the parties breaks down, an exclusive contract may be terminated by the artist,” the court ruled. “However, it is the responsibility of the party claiming such a breakdown to prove that the circumstances have reached a point where maintaining the contractual relationship is no longer viable.”
The court determined that NewJeans’ side had failed to adequately prove such circumstances.
During the court hearing on March 7, Ador argued that the five members had unilaterally notified the company of their contract termination without legitimate reasons. It emphasised that NewJeans’ achievements were made possible through the company’s full support and resources.
Ador also argued that the members’ recent announcement of a new team name and intentions to sign with another agency while the contract remains valid constitutes a breach of contract.
In response, NewJeans’ legal team contended that Ador’s parent company Hybe repeatedly discriminated against the group and failed to provide support equal to that received by other affiliated artists. They claimed Ador, which is 75 per cent owned by Hybe, is not capable of making independent decisions and therefore shares responsibility for Hybe’s actions.
However, the court rejected this argument, stating, “Based on the claims and evidence submitted so far, it is difficult to conclude that Ador violated a key obligation under the exclusive contract or that the trust between the parties has broken down to an irreparable extent.”
