EDITED: OCT 29 11:35 PM PDT
The long-running dispute between girl group New Jeans and their agency ADOR reached a major turning point on October 30, 2025, when the 41st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jeong Hoe-il) ruled that the exclusive contracts signed between ADOR and the five New Jeans members in 2022 remain legally valid.
According to Dispatch, a South Korean news organization, stated that typically, civil courts only deliver a brief summary of their rulings. But this case was an exception. The judge took the unusual step of reading each key point of the decision aloud, one by one, over the course of roughly forty minutes. In doing so, the court firmly rejected all of NewJeans’ arguments, stating that “ADOR neither violated any significant obligation under the exclusive contract, nor can it be acknowledged that the relationship of trust was broken.”
The court’s decision comes nearly a year after New Jeans announced at a press conference in November 2024 that they were terminating their exclusive contracts with ADOR, citing a “breakdown of trust.” The group subsequently declared independent activities under the new name NJZ.
ADOR responded on December 3, 2024, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the contracts were still valid, asserting that “a unilateral claim of broken trust cannot be grounds for termination.” The agency also filed an injunction in January 2025 to preserve its management rights and prohibit the members from signing advertising or promotional deals while the main lawsuit was ongoing.
The court also accepted ADOR’s indirect compulsory motion, ordering each member to pay ₩1 billion (approximately $740,000 USD) per violation if they engage in entertainment activities without the agency’s prior approval.
Two rounds of court-mediated settlement attempts failed, leading to this week’s final ruling.
The Court’s Decision: Contract Valid, Costs to Be Borne by NewJeans
At 9:50 a.m. on October 30, the court announced its decision:
“The exclusive contract between ADOR and New Jeans signed in 2022 is valid. NewJeans shall bear the legal costs.”
The court rejected all of NewJeans’ major claims, including allegations that ADOR’s dismissal of Min Hee-jin constituted a breach of duty or that HYBE’s audit of her was retaliatory.
“The dismissal of former CEO Min Hee-jin alone does not constitute a management vacuum or show that ADOR lacks the ability to perform its duties… Min Hee-jin’s role is not a core element of the exclusive contract.”
The court determined that NewJeans’ trust in former CEO Min Hee-jin could is not a decisive factor in their exclusive contract, since the agreement did not guarantee Min’s continued role as ADOR’s representative.
“The exclusive contract in this case does not explicitly stipulate that a specific individual—namely Min Hee-jin—must carry out management responsibilities as CEO,” the court stated.
It also noted that even after Min’s dismissal as CEO, she remained in a position to perform producing duties as an internal director. The judge further explained that ADOR had offered Min a new contract re-delegating her producing authority, but she declined the proposal.
“ADOR continued to pursue Min Hee-jin’s reappointment as an inside director. However, she resigned of her own accord. ADOR didn’t unilaterally break the relationship of trust.”
The court found no legal basis to conclude that ADOR breached its obligations, adding that the absence of Min “will not cause a gap in New Jeans’ album planning or entertainment activities.”
In addition, the judges determined that trust between the parties had not broken down to a degree that justified termination:
“You can’t claim the mutual trust has been lost to a point where the contract cannot be upheld.”
NewJeans also argued that ADOR failed to properly fulfill its management duties after Min’s dismissal. The court rejected that claim as well.
“The company’s delay in recruiting a new producer was due to its initial efforts to seek Min Hee-jin’s cooperation.”
The ruling emphasized that even during this transitional period, ADOR continued to operate normally.
“Management work such as album production, performance planning, world tour preparations, and advertising coordination was consistently carried out.”
On the HYBE Audit and “Retaliation” Claims
The court sided with HYBE and ADOR regarding the audit of Min Hee-jin, rejecting her repeated assertions that it was conducted in retaliation for her raising internal concerns.
As part of the ruling, the court cited KakaoTalk conversations between Min Hee-jin and former ADOR Vice President Lee Sang-woo as direct evidence. Because civil litigation in South Korea follows the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the messages were deemed admissible and valid in court.
The submitted exchanges, presented by HYBE on July 24, 2025, the case’s third hearing, revealed that Min Hee-jin had discussed plans for independence months before the audit. In one conversation from February 2024, when Lee remarked, “We’re going to make it hard for them [HYBE] and gain our freedom,” Min responded, “That would be great.”
In a subsequent exchange the following month, Lee wrote, “We’re changing the plan and moving the timing forward. We won’t talk about the media here. We’ll file a lawsuit based on public opinion. We’ll explode when we get a response.”
The court noted that these messages demonstrated premeditation in creating public pressure and legal confrontation.
The ruling also referenced a KakaoTalk draft message prepared by Min on April 20, 2024, outlining her plan to file a report to the Fair Trade Commission:
“Mothers need to report to the Fair Trade Commission and make an announcement. Pushing out HYBE’s album isn’t important—what matters is making it known to the public.”
According to the court, these actions showed that Min had been actively seeking to influence investors and mobilize the members’ parents to shape public opinion.
“It appears that former CEO Min initiated the public opinion war between April 3 and April 11, 2024. She sought to create negative public sentiment toward HYBE, not for the purpose of protecting New Jeans, but for the purpose of independence and was preparing to separate ADOR and New Jeans from HYBE’s control.”
The ruling added that HYBE’s “initiation of the audit was a legitimate response to this plan.”
A few of Min Heejin’s Kakaotalk Messages published by different South Korean Media, translated in English.
On the “Dispatch” Trainee Videos
The court also examined the release of Source Music trainee videos by Dispatch showing the members of New Jeans rehearsing to the song “Attention” while they were still under Source Music. The members argued that HYBE didn’t protect their rights.
The court ruled that the matter can’t be considered a contractual breach.
“Indeed, two videos were deleted or blurred. Considering that HYBE had taken appropriate steps to address the situation by contacting Source Music and issuing an official notice to Dispatch, it proves that the plaintiff took appropriate corrective action.”
The court thus determined that HYBE had taken sufficient steps to address the issue and that the incident did not amount to negligence or a loss of trust.
On ILLIT and Allegations of Concept Copying
New Jeans and Min Hee-jin had argued that HYBE’s in-house label Belift Lab debuted ILLIT with a concept allegedly copied from New Jeans. The court dismissed this argument as well:
“Although some similarities were confirmed in the plans and pictorials of New Jeans and ILLIT, it does not mean ILLIT copied New Jeans. The ‘girls-next-door’ or youthful concept is not an intellectual property protected by law.”
The court further noted that ADOR, while under Min Hee-jin’s leadership, had already sent an official document to BeLift Lab expressing concern over the similarity — evidence that the agency had taken appropriate steps at the time.
Judge’s Clarification on the “Ignore Her” Remark
Addressing an additional allegation of Hanni, a member of New Jeans, that a manager from ILLIT had told others to “ignore” New Jeans member Hanni, the court stated:
“Based on the evidence submitted, it can’t be proven that Hanni heard remarks such as ‘ignore her’ from an ILLIT manager. Even if additional footage were available, CCTV has no audio, so the alleged statements would not be verifiable.”
The judges added that Hanni’s description of the incident did not accurately reflect what occurred.
“CCTV footage confirms that the members of ILLIT bowed to Hanni. Based solely on the evidence submitted, there is nothing that proves someone violated her personal rights.”
In short, the court found no proof of verbal misconduct or mistreatment by ILLIT members, ruling that the allegation lacked factual basis and could not be used as evidence of a breakdown in trust between NewJeans, ADOR, and HYBE.
Members of New Jeans also claimed that HYBE Chairman Bang Si Hyuk ignored them when they chanced upon him in the elevator. Hanni appeared before South Korea’s national assembly to testify on Workplace Bullying.
On Media Controversies, “Dolphin Kidnapping Group,” and Alleged Album Pushbacks
The judge also rejected NewJeans’ claim that a HYBE PR employee disparaged the group’s performance when it requested publications to correct its report that New Jeans sold a million copies of their Japanese debut album. HYBE clarified that it merely requested a correction to prevent misinformation that could confuse investors.
“It is not a disparagement of NewJeans but rather a correction of factual inaccuracies concerning HYBE and its stock price. Leaving the false report uncorrected could have misled the market. HYBE’s actions were standard corporate procedure, not an attack on the group.”
The court also sided with ADOR in its dispute with the Dolphin Kidnapping Group, the external production team behind the “ETA (Director’s Cut)” music video. ADOR had requested that the video be taken down after it was posted online without HYBE’s prior approval, which was required under the terms of their service contract.
“The terms of the service contract clearly stipulated that the video could not be uploaded without HYBE’s prior consent. Nevertheless, the Dolphin Kidnapping Group posted it. ADOR’s actions against the company were an exercise of contractual rights, and it can hardly be seen as a breach of any significant obligation under the exclusive contract.”
In summary, the court found that HYBE and ADOR’s actions in these instances — from media management to production disputes — were consistent with standard corporate governance and did not amount to violations of the exclusive contract or acts of bad faith.
Investment and Industry Context
In its defense, ADOR emphasized its ₩21 billion (approximately $15.5 million USD) investment into New Jeans, including ₩7 billion ($5.2 million USD) for their debut album and ₩2 billion ($1.5 million USD) for the debut music video, with HYBE’s active support.
The court acknowledged this point, adding that such heavy upfront investment under uncertain success is standard industry practice:
“In cases like New Jeans, management contracts are often signed before debut with large investments that can only be recouped through success. The fact that unreasonable demands were not accepted does not mean they are being forced to exclusive activities against one’s free will or as a violation of personal rights.”
The judge also clarified that a remark cited by New Jeans — allegedly referencing “abandoning New Jeans” — was taken out of context and merely part of a strategy discussion about LE SSERAFIM’s promotion plan.
The court further stated there was insufficient evidence to support claims that HYBE executives ignored the members or interfered with brand deals, such as the rumored Apple campaign.
“This is a case where, after building popularity and fandom through an exclusive contract, the artists are now claiming decision-making authority over personnel matters, content production, etc., and when those unreasonable requests were not accepted, the artist claims infringement of personal rights.”
The court upholds the authority of ADOR to make management decisions.
Aftermath: New Jeans to Appeal
Following the ruling, New Jeans’ legal representative, Sejong Law Firm, released a statement confirming plans to appeal:
“The members respect the court’s judgment but maintain that it is impossible to return to ADOR and continue normal entertainment activities in the current situation where the relationship of trust has been completely broken. We plan to immediately appeal this ruling and hope that the appellate court will review the facts and legal principles once again to deliver a fair judgment.
We express our sincere gratitude to the fans who have waited and supported us throughout this process.”
What Comes Next
With the first-instance ruling delivered, the case now moves to the appellate stage, where New Jeans will challenge the court’s interpretation of contract validity and the scope of “trust” between artist and agency.
For now, the decision cements ADOR’s legal control over the group and signals judicial recognition of HYBE’s handling of internal disputes.
The ruling reinforces the binding nature of pre-debut exclusive contracts in K-pop.
