NewJeans have failed to escape ADOR. 1. Min Hee-jin dismissal= Management vacuum? The court first stated regarding the defendant's (NewJeans) claim, "It is difficult to conclude that a management vacuum occurred based solely on the fact that CEO Min Hee-jin was dismissed." It judged that merely the defendants having high trust in Min Hee-jin is not sufficient to consider guaranteeing Min Hee-jin as CEO as a major obligation under the exclusive contract. It also pointed out that even after Min Hee-jin was dismissed from the CEO position, she was in a position to perform producer duties as an internal director. The court stated, "The exclusive contract in this case does not explicitly state that a specific person, Min Hee-jin, must necessarily perform management duties as the CEO." It continued, "ADOR had proposed a contract to re-delegate producing work to Min Hee-jin," and revealed, "However, Min Hee-jin refused that proposal." The court explained, "ADOR pursued the reappointment of Min Hee-jin as an internal director even afterwards. However, Min Hee-jin voluntarily resigned," and stated, "It is difficult to view ADOR as having unilaterally destroyed the trust relationship." 2. HYBE's management performance capability The defendant side claimed, "ADOR failed to fulfill its management obligations after Min Hee-jin's dismissal." The court stated regarding this, "It is difficult to accept." The court said, "ADOR's inability to secure a producer for several months after Min Hee-jin's dismissal was a process of waiting for Min Hee-jin's cooperation." It continued, "Even during that period, it continued management tasks such as album production, performance preparation, world tour plan establishment, and advertisement shooting planning provision," and dismissed the claim. 3. Min Hee-jin audit and dismissal procedure is,legitimate The court also explicitly stated regarding the 'legitimacy of the Min Hee-jin dismissal process,' which was one of the core issues of the judgment, "It is difficult to view this matter as a result of an unfair audit." It directly cited the KakaoTalk conversation content between Min Hee-jin and former ADOR Vice President Lee Sang-woo as evidence. As the free evaluation of evidence principle applies in civil lawsuits, KakaoTalk conversations were also considered legitimate evidence. Min Hee-jin's intention for independence was revealed in the messenger conversation. In February last year, when the Vice President said, "They (HYBE) suffer, and we gain freedom," Min Hee-jin responded, "That would be good." In a conversation the following month, she mentioned, "Plan changed, moving up the timing. We don't talk about the media here. We will file a public opinion lawsuit. We'll blow it up after seeing the response." The court pointed out, "Min Hee-jin had the intention to separate ADOR, including NewJeans, from HYBE and had prepared in advance for a public opinion campaign and lawsuit." It also cited a KakaoTalk message where Min Hee-jin prepared in advance for a Fair Trade Commission report on April 20 last year. Min Hee-jin said, "The mothers must file a report with the Fair Trade Commission and even make an announcement. Pushing out HYBE albums is not important; informing the public is important." Regarding this, it judged, "There were also public opinion formation acts involving contacting investors and using the members' parents," and "These acts are sufficient grounds for ADOR to initiate an audit." The court stated, "There are sufficient circumstances to view that Min Hee-jin had the intention to take NewJeans and become independent," and pointed out that "ADOR's initiation of the audit was a response to this plan." 4. Dispatch' trainee image/videos = Trust breakdown? It was also judged that the trainee-era videos from SOURCE MUSIC released by 'Dispatch' cannot be a cause for trust breakdown. The court said, "In fact, two videos were deleted, and blurring was applied." "Considering that HYBE additionally selected companies for taking measures against posts of NewJeans' trainee photos and videos, sent an email to SOURCE MUSIC requesting an explanation of the circumstances, and sent an official letter to Dispatch, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff failed to take necessary measures." 5. NewJeans achievement disparagement? Regarding the claim that a HYBE PR employee disparaged achievements to a reporter, it said, "It is difficult to conclusively determine it as NewJeans disparagement, as it went beyond correcting factual relationships underlying HYBE and its stock price." At the time, the reporter reported that NewJeans' Japanese debut album sold 1 million copies. This was an erroneous report, and HYBE explained, "If incorrect information is left as is, it could cause confusion for investors, so we requested a correction." 6. ILLIT plagiarized? The claim of ILLIT plagiarism suspicions was also not recognized. It said, "Although some similarities are confirmed between NewJeans and ILLIT, it is difficult to view it as copying." 7. Hanni,ignore her? The court pointed out that the initial 'ignore her' remark originated from Min Hee-jin. It viewed that "Min Hee-jin sent a message saying, 'Did all of ILLIT ignore you?' emphasizing the word 'ignore.'" It also pointed out that Hanni did not accurately describe the situation at the time. It said, "According to the CCTV, it is confirmed that the ILLIT members bowed their waists and greeted Hanni. Based solely on the submitted evidence, it is difficult to recognize that she heard remarks infringing on her personality rights." 8. Dolphin Kidnapping Groups It also viewed HYBE's request to the Dolphin Abduction Unit to delete the NewJeans 'ETA Director's Cut' video was legitimate. It pointed out, "According to the consignment service contract content, it cannot be posted without HYBE's prior consent. Nevertheless, it was posted by the Dolphinners" "It appears that the plaintiff's action against the Dolphin was an exercise of rights according to the consignment service contract. It is difficult to view it as a violation of an important exclusive contract." 9. Album pushing out It explicitly stated that it was Min Hee-jin's means of political strife. It revealed, "Based solely on the submitted evidence, it is difficult to view that a pushing out unfavorable to NewJeans was executed. Min Hee-jin only used it as a means to attack HYBE." 10. Discard the New and start a new game NewJeans at the time fixated only on the phrase 'Discard the New and start a new game' in the report. However, the court judged that when looking at the report overall, there is no negative content about NewJeans. It also questioned Min Hee-jin's actions. It pointed out, "Min Hee-jin, who was the CEO at the time, received the report but did not raise any objections." It also mentioned that HYBE invested 21 billion won in NewJeans. It added, "It is also difficult to comprehend abandoning NewJeans and focusing on other idols." The court stated in its ruling, "It is difficult to view ADOR as having breached major obligations of the exclusive contract. The trust relationship breakdown claimed by the defendants also cannot be recognized," and judged that "the claim for exclusive contract termination is without reason." The exclusive contract between NewJeans and ADOR remains valid. With this ruling, ADOR has secured a legal basis to put a brake on NewJeans' independent activities. submitted by /u/jqiwyoxn [link] [comments]
