The ongoing conflict between the popular girl group NewJeans (Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein) and their former agency, ADOR, has caught the attention of not only fans but also legal experts in Korea. Following a heartfelt letter from NewJeans detailing their reasons for wanting to leave ADOR, several prominent attorneys have shared their professional opinions on the potential legal outcomes of this complex situation.
Key Legal Perspectives on the Dispute
The central legal question revolves around whether NewJeans‘ claims of mistreatment and lack of support from ADOR constitute valid grounds for terminating their exclusive contract.
Differing Views on Contract Termination:
Some lawyers express skepticism about NewJeans‘ chances of successfully terminating their contract without facing penalties. Attorney Kim Kyung Nam from Foryou Law Office believes that minor contract violations, even if proven, are rarely sufficient for unilateral termination and that the group may face counterclaims for damages from ADOR. He stated:
The termination’s validity depends on whether there is a material breach of the contract. Courts typically interpret such cases strictly, and termination is only allowed for significant breaches, such as financial insolvency making it impossible to support artists. None of NewJeans’ claims appear to meet these criteria. The demands made by NewJeans lack substantial evidence, and even if true, they are unlikely to hold up legally. Instead, NewJeans may end up being liable for damages to ADOR. Most lawyers agree that termination is unlikely, and I share this view.
Similarly, Attorney Park Sung Bae from Law Firm Hyemyung stated:
While terminating an exclusive contract is relatively free in Korea, it would be difficult for NewJeans to completely avoid liability for damages. Termination is typically justified by extreme situations like verbal abuse, physical assault, or failure to provide timely settlements—none of which seem evident here. Intellectual property disputes over imitating their work are unlikely to justify contract termination either. Courts rarely grant full damages in such cases, often significantly reducing the amounts owed.
Attorney Heo Joo Yeon from New Wave Law Firm echoed this sentiment, explaining:
NewJeans’ six stated reasons for termination are challenging to prove. Many of their claims involve third parties, such as Min Hee Jin’s reinstatement and resolving disputes with the director of Dolphiners Films, which are not directly related to the contract. Even NewJeans’ claims about mistreatment within HYBE or allegations of being sidelined must be backed by solid evidence proving such actions caused harm. Without clear proof, it will be hard to argue that these constitute breaches of contract. Even if this case proceeds to litigation, it seems unlikely that NewJeans will win or completely avoid termination penalties.
However, other legal experts offer a different perspective. Attorney Roh Jong Eon from Jonjae Law Firm suggests that ADOR‘s alleged actions, such as attempting to divide the group and undermine their trust, could be seen as a breach of their duty to protect the artists. He explained:
In cases of irrevocable trust breakdowns, even if both parties share blame, courts have ruled that forcing a relationship to continue is unreasonable. This means NewJeans’ termination notice might hold legal weight. If mutual blame is established, termination penalties for both parties could be reduced to zero. NewJeans’ actions were strategic and decisive.
Attorney Kim Tae Yeon from Taeyeon Law Office also suggested that even if NewJeans faces challenges in avoiding liability completely, they might be able to reduce or avoid significant penalties if the court acknowledges ADOR‘s potential failure to fulfill their managerial duties.
Other Legal Considerations:
Several other legal experts weighed in on specific aspects of the case:
Park Sung Woo from Wooree Law Firm suggested that NewJeans‘ claim of zero penalties needs legal validation and that a trial might not favor them. He also believes this strategy might be a way to pressure ADOR.
Bae Jin Sung from YK Law Firm stated that it’s unlikely NewJeans will be able to continue using their current group name, as contracts typically assign these rights to the agency.
Baek Soo Woong from Us Law Office believes that visa validity will likely remain until a final legal ruling on the termination.
Seon Jong Moon from GY Law Firm stated that courts will examine contract breaches, such as delayed settlements or insufficient management. He stated that if ADOR is fulfilling its duties, termination will be hard to justify.
Son Soo Ho from Son & Partners believes both parties have valid arguments and it is too early to judge. He stated that evidence of ADOR violating the contract is key and that if ADOR initiates legal action, it could negatively impact their public image.
Song Hye Mi from Opes Law Firm stated that NewJeans needs to prove the reasons for termination and that courts consider agencies’ financial investments in artists. She believes it’s unlikely NewJeans will completely avoid penalties and that copyright disputes could arise if they continue activities after declaring termination.
The Importance of Evidence and Court Decisions
The ultimate outcome of this legal battle will depend on the specific details of the contract and the evidence presented in court. The court will need to determine whether ADOR breached the contract and whether the alleged breaches are significant enough to justify termination.
Also Read: G-Dragon Reveals Hilarious Reason Behind His Popular Headscarf Trend
To know the latest developments about NewJeans, Keep an eye on VvipTimes, and allow notifications from us to get instant updates on your device.
