After nearly a year of escalating legal battles, the Seoul Central District Court has ruled in favor of ADOR in its dispute with NJZ (formerly NewJeans), confirming the validity of the group’s exclusive contracts.
The case traces back to November 2024, when the members sent a formal letter to ADOR demanding internal changes following the dismissal of former CEO Min Hee-jin—whose reinstatement was among their requests. When their demands went unmet, the group announced the unilateral termination of their contracts later that month. ADOR soon responded with a lawsuit seeking to confirm the contracts’ validity.
On Sept. 11, 2024, NewJeans held a livestream demanding that HYBE reinstate ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin and raised several other concerns about their treatment under the label.
According to Korean media reports, the court found that ADOR did not violate its management duties or destroy trust with the artists and that Min Hee-jin’s dismissal was lawful. The judges held that the evidence presented by NJZ and their lawyers did not amount to a “serious breach of contract.”
Fans, known as Bunnies, expressed disappointment in the verdict on social media, while the group’s legal representatives at Sejong Law Firm confirmed that NJZ would not return to ADOR and that they plan to appeal the ruling.
“Today, the Seoul Central District Court issued a judgment in the lawsuit brought by ADOR seeking to confirm the validity of the exclusive contracts with the members of NewJeans.
The court has ruled that the exclusive contracts are valid.
While the members respect the court’s decision, they hold that it is impossible to return to ADOR and continue their usual entertainment activities with the company, due to the complete breakdown of trust between the parties.
The members plan to immediately file an appeal.
We ask that the appellate court conduct a thorough review of the facts of the case and the legal issues surrounding the contract termination and render a wise judgment.”
— Sejong Law Firm, legal counsel for NJZ (NewJeans)
ADOR, meanwhile, released a statement celebrating the judgment:
“Today, the court ruled that the exclusive contracts between our company and our artists NewJeans remain valid in the exclusive contract validity lawsuit.
The court determined that our company did not violate any obligations as a management agency and that any attempt to break away from the exclusive contracts by citing a breakdown in trust should not be permitted.
We are deeply grateful for the court’s decision.
Since the artists claimed termination of the exclusive contracts in November last year, we have been watching the series of processes—the main lawsuit to confirm the validity of the exclusive contracts, the injunction application to prevent confusion until the main judgment is issued, the court’s decision to grant the injunction, the artists’ immediate appeal, and the decision to dismiss it—with a heavy heart and have responded carefully throughout.
For nearly a year, the court has consistently ruled in multiple related cases that our company holds the position of management agency under the exclusive contracts and that the artists are to carry out entertainment activities with us.
We sincerely hope that today’s result, which once again affirms the same conclusion after a long period of examining various claims and facts, will serve as an opportunity for the artists to calmly reconsider this matter.
We, too, will once again reaffirm our role and responsibilities as a management agency under the exclusive contracts. As stated during the trial, we have completed preparations for future activities, including the release of a full-length album, and are ready to proceed. Through discussions with the artists, we will do our utmost to return to fans as soon as possible.”
— ADOR official statement
Min Hee-jin, former CEO of ADOR
According to the written judgment, the court determined that Min Hee-jin’s dismissal as CEO did not constitute a violation of the members’ exclusive contracts. The judges noted that Min could still continue as an in-house director and producer even without holding the CEO title, and that her removal alone was insufficient grounds for termination.
