News Hybe/MHJ Civil War Megathread (43 Viewers)

[Selfmate]

Man fined for breaking into NewJeans' former dorm and taking photos

A man has been fined for breaking into the former dormitory of girl group NewJeans, stealing items and taking photos.

The Seoul Western District Court on Wednesday sentenced the 28-year-old man, surnamed Kim, to a fine of 10 million won ($7,200) for trespassing and theft. Prosecutors had sought a 10-month prison sentence.

Kim was indicted without detention for breaking into NewJeans’ former residence in Yongsan District, central Seoul, on two occasions in December 2024. He stole items including a clothes hanger and a banner while also taking photos of the interior that he posted on an online community.

The members of NewJeans had vacated the dorm after notifying their agency ADOR of their decision to terminate their exclusive contracts in November that year.

“The location was no longer occupied by the celebrities, so the risk of a direct violation of their privacy was relatively low," said the court. "The defendant admitted to the crime during the investigation, showed remorse and has no prior criminal record.”

NewJeans marked its third anniversary on Tuesday but remains on hiatus.

The group's last official activity was the release of their Japanese debut single “Supernatural” on June 21, 2024. Their most recent Korean release was the single “How Sweet” on May 24, 2024.

Since then, members Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin and Hyein have been embroiled in a legal dispute with their agency ADOR and held a press conference last November to address the matter. Plans for a redebut under the group name NJZ were ultimately scrapped.

On June 17, the Seoul High Court rejected the members’ appeal of a lower court decision that temporarily upheld ADOR's status as the singers' management agency under the exclusive contract, maintaining a ban on independent activities.

Source: https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.co...ewJeans-former-dorm-and-taking-photos/2359397

 

[Selfmate]

From stage to courtroom: NewJeans meets 3rd anniversary in legal standoff

K-pop girl group NewJeans marked the third anniversary of its debut this week, but instead of a celebration, the milestone arrived under the shadow of an unresolved legal dispute with its agency, Ador.

Two days after marking its third debut anniversary, NewJeans underwent a third court hearing Thursday at 4 p.m., in a lawsuit filed by Ador seeking to confirm the validity of the group's exclusive contracts — a case that has kept the group embroiled in legal trouble for months.

With the hearing falling so close to the anniversary date, fans gathered outside the Seoul Central District Court in hopes of seeing the five members — Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin and Hyein — but the group did not appear in person for the proceedings.

The legal conflict between NewJeans and the HYBE subsidiary began back in November 2024, when the members held an emergency press conference and declared their intention to terminate their contracts with the agency citing that the trust between them had broken down. Soon after, the group revealed a new name, NJZ, via a new social media account and began preparing for independent promotional activities.

In response, Ador filed a lawsuit to confirm that its exclusive contracts with the members were still legally binding. The agency also sought an injunction to ban the members from engaging in any new activities under outside management.

The court later ruled in favor of Ador in March, granting the injunction in full and later rejecting the group's appeal. The decision effectively froze all NewJeans activities and has since brought its career to a standstill.

This legal standoff has cast a long shadow over what had once been a meteoric rise. Debuting on July 22, 2022, NewJeans was hailed as one of the most groundbreaking acts to emerge in recent K-pop history. The quintet's easy-listening tracks, catchy choreography and adorable members made a splash that surpassed the usual breakout buzz.

The group's success was in part thanks to their ability to break the mold in K-pop, stripping away the overly conceptual, niche storytelling and obsessive identity-building that had come to dominate K-pop and instead presenting the members as natural, fun-loving girls true to their age.

For many, the group offered a refreshing return to emotional immediacy and youthfulness. The group's versatility allowed them to effortlessly move between hip, trend-forward aesthetics and nostalgic retro moods, earning them both commercial success and cultural cachet.

As a result, the singles from the group's debut EP, "Attention" and "Hype Boy," followed by "Ditto," "OMG," "Super Shy" and "ETA," became instant hits, each further cementing the group's identity.

Much of the group's success had also been credited to Ador's former CEO Min Hee-jin, a former creative director at SM Entertainment. After being recruited to HYBE by founder Bang Si-hyuk, Min launched NewJeans as her first girl group, drawing attention from K-pop watchers even before the group's debut.

But NewJeans' stunning rise met an abrupt roadblock when Min's feud with HYBE became public in April 2024. Tensions escalated as the company accused Min of attempting to seize control of Ador, and Min responded with aggressive legal and public pushback.

Her dispute with the parent company soon spilled over to NewJeans, as the members aligned themselves with Min and moved to exit the agency, deepening the rift.

While Min was recently cleared of breach of trust charges after police declined to refer the case for prosecution, the situation surrounding NewJeans remains unresolved. During the last court hearing, when asked whether there was any room for settlement, the group's legal counsel responded by saying they had "crossed a river of no return," firmly rejecting reconciliation.

Updates on the group are currently only available through official accounts still managed by Ador, while the members' individual communication channels have gone silent.

The group's most recent official music releases were the double single "How Sweet" and "Bubble Gum" in May 2024, followed by their Japanese debut single "Supernatural" in June. Its last performance was at ComplexCon in Hong Kong in March, where it surprise-dropped its new song "Pit Stop."

Source: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/entert...jeans-meets-3rd-anniversary-in-legal-standoff

 

[Selfmate]

The girl group continues to accuse agency of mismanagement, while Ador says contract termination is baseless and driven by former CEO Min Hee-jin

The legal standoff between K-pop girl group NewJeans and its agency Ador continues to escalate, with both sides presenting conflicting arguments over the validity of the group’s exclusive contract.

The Seoul Central District Court on Thursday held the third hearing in Ador’s lawsuit seeking to confirm the enforceability of its contract with the five-member group. The NewJeans members, who attempted to terminate their contracts unilaterally in November, were not present in court; only their legal representatives attended.

NewJeans’ attorneys attributed the dispute to a now-concluded internal audit of former Ador CEO Min Hee-jin, which was initiated by parent company Hybe in May 2024. They argued that the audit — and Hybe’s subsequent attempt to remove Min — were based on unfounded suspicions. On July 18, police cleared Min of criminal breach of trust allegations filed by Hybe last year; Hybe plans to appeal.

The group's legal team further claimed that Ador failed to meet fundamental management responsibilities, alleging that this breach justified the artists’ attempt to sever ties.

Ador rejected the accusations, asserting that the reasons for contract termination have shifted over time and appear to have been constructed by NewJeans and their legal team retroactively.

“This is an unreasonable attempt to invalidate the contracts after the fact,” said a lawyer for Ador.

The agency emphasized its financial investment in NewJeans, citing over 21 billion won ($15.3 million) spent on the group’s development and debut. This included 7 billion won for the group's debut album and 2 billion won for music videos.

“Thanks to this support, NewJeans achieved explosive success — something even the court has acknowledged,” Ador’s legal representative said.

“Yet despite this, the group attempted to unilaterally cancel its contracts just two years after its debut. Such a move cannot be permitted.”

Ador also claimed that Min was the driving force behind the group’s attempted departure.

According to the agency’s attorney, private messages exchanged between Min and former Ador executives revealed that she had been planning to “take” NewJeans as early as three years ago. The messages allegedly outlined strategies for terminating the exclusive contract, including orchestrating plagiarism accusations against another Hybe-affiliated girl group, Illit, and manipulating media narratives.

The agency also alleged that the legal notice to terminate the contract was drafted by Min’s legal representatives, further pointing to her involvement.

Responding to accusations of mismanagement, Ador maintained it had upheld its responsibilities and noted that each member had already received over 5 billion won in earnings.

“The agency is still preparing for the group’s comeback,” Ador said. “Our staff are waiting for the day they return.”

Source: https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10539346

 

[Selfmate]

NewJeans members object to ADOR’s claim that Min Hee Jin tried to "Take" the group

On July 24, the third hearing in the civil case between ADOR and the members of NewJeans took place at the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Agreement Division 41, presided over by Judge Jung Hoe Il. The case centers on ADOR’s request for the court to affirm the validity of its exclusive contracts with the members.

During the hearing, both ADOR and the members’ legal teams delivered 30-minute presentations outlining their respective arguments. Prior to the main proceedings, NewJeans' legal representatives requested the court to avoid mentioning illegally obtained evidence during the open trial, even if it had been submitted in written form.

However, during ADOR’s presentation, the legal team referenced a controversial KakaoTalk message allegedly sent by former CEO Min Hee Jin, stating:“We’ll get them [NewJeans] back in three years.” The members’ side immediately objected, arguing that the evidence was being “intentionally aired in open court,” despite prior requests not to disclose such material publicly.

The presiding judge dismissed the objection, stating, “I already know about this. Do you think reporters don’t?” When the NewJeans’ legal team continued to protest, the judge warned, “You cannot interrupt the proceedings like this. Please refrain from doing so. The ‘taking back’ claim is something we've already heard.”

Tensions between NewJeans and ADOR escalated last November when the group held an emergency press conference, declaring a breakdown in trust with both ADOR and its parent company, HYBE, and announcing their intent to terminate their exclusive contracts.

In response, ADOR filed the current lawsuit to confirm the contracts’ validity and also sought an injunction to prohibit the members from signing new endorsement deals or engaging in business activities under another agency. The court granted the injunction in March, siding with ADOR, and upheld the decision again in the appeals process.

In the previous two hearings, the conflict remained unresolved. While ADOR expressed a willingness to reach a settlement, the NewJeans members firmly rejected the idea, stating, “The relationship of trust with ADOR is beyond repair. There’s no going back.”

ADOR has also accused the group of frequently changing the reasons for terminating the contract, stating, “The individual grounds cited by the members are unjustified. We will submit detailed rebuttals in writing before the next hearing.”

The next session is expected to further examine the evolving legal arguments from both sides in what has become one of the most high-profile entertainment industry disputes in Korea this year.

Source: https://www.allkpop.com/article/202...laim-that-min-hee-jin-tried-to-take-the-group

 

[Selfmate]

Will NewJeans finally return to ADOR? Members set ONE non-negotiable condition amid August 14 mediation

NewJeans’ legal team says members may return to ADOR, but only if agency is restored to pre-audit state. Mediation with NJZ and ADOR set for August 14. Read here to know more!

The tense legal battle between NewJeans (NJZ) and their agency ADOR entered a critical new phase on July 24, 2025. Both parties attended the third hearing at the Seoul Central District Court. The hearing focused on the core issue: whether the group’s exclusive contracts with ADOR remain valid.

Following the session, the court officially scheduled a closed-door mediation for August 14. This signals a potential opportunity for both sides to reach a compromise outside of lengthy litigation. The outcome of the mediation may determine whether NewJeans remains under ADOR or is freed from their current contract.

NewJeans open to returning to ADOR, but only under one condition

In a notable shift, NewJeans’s legal team clarified that the members aren’t completely against returning to ADOR. However, they laid out a non-negotiable condition. The agency must revert to how it was before HYBE’s internal audit of former CEO Min Hee Jin began in April 2024.

NewJeans’ side stated, “It’s not that [the members] absolutely refuse to return to ADOR. If ADOR can be returned to how it was before the audit in April 2024, [they] would be willing to go back. But if that’s not possible, then we hope they will let [the members] go by terminating the contract.”

The team argued that the core of the dispute stemmed not from a desire to leave ADOR, but from the disruption caused by HYBE’s intervention. The audit accused Min Hee Jin of attempting to seize control and manipulate NewJeans’ management. But it was later found baseless by police. Despite this, the fallout deeply impacted the members.

According to NewJeans’s side, HYBE’s attempt to dismiss Min Hee Jin based on the audit created an unstable environment. They claim NewJeans were caught in the crossfire, leading to broken trust and emotional distress. The group’s stance is clear: they are only open to staying if ADOR is restored to its pre-audit leadership and structure.

NewJeans rejects HYBE-controlled ADOR

The group’s legal representatives also criticized ADOR’s current operations, stating that the label has changed drastically since Min Hee Jin’s authority was challenged. They accused HYBE of placing its staff in key roles at ADOR, altering the agency’s internal culture and direction.

NewJeans’s team emphasized that the members’ success was made possible under Min Hee Jin’s leadership. With that foundation now compromised, the team firmly stated that returning to a HYBE-controlled ADOR is not an option.

They added, “Today’s ADOR is not the same ADOR that led to our past success. It’s now controlled by HYBE staff. The so-called generous support and dividends came when Min Hee Jin was CEO. We can’t trust ADOR anymore, which is why we can’t return to it in its current state.”

What happens next?

The upcoming August 14 mediation will be a crucial test of whether both ADOR and NewJeans are willing to find middle ground. If mediation fails, the court will proceed with its final judgment on the contract validity lawsuit. The outcome could potentially set a major precedent for artist-agency relations in K-pop.

Source: https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertain...le-condition-amid-august-14-mediation-1394460

 

[Selfmate]

NewJeans open to returning to ADOR, but only under one condition

In a notable shift, NewJeans’s legal team clarified that the members aren’t completely against returning to ADOR. However, they laid out a non-negotiable condition. The agency must revert to how it was before HYBE’s internal audit of former CEO Min Hee Jin began in April 2024.

This part is very interesting given that we can NEVER ever ever get back together with ADOR

 

[Selfmate]

ADOR Warns: “NewJeans’ Contract Termination Could Damage K-pop, Returning Is in Everyone’s Best Interest”

On July 24, during the third hearing of the exclusive contract validity lawsuit at the Seoul Central District Court, ADOR argued that NewJeans would benefit from returning to their agency, both professionally and reputationally.

Quoting from a previous Seoul High Court ruling that upheld ADOR’s management rights and blocked NewJeans from pursuing independent promotions, ADOR’s legal team stated: “The burden of proof lies with the defendants to justify terminating the contract, but no valid grounds have been presented. Instead, the court confirmed there are no justifiable reasons for the contract’s cancellation.”

ADOR further emphasized that preparations for NewJeans’ comeback are actively underway, saying, “If the contract remains valid, the members will be able to enjoy top-tier support for their careers and shed the reputation of being unreliable artists. They’ll also avoid lawsuits and financial penalties.”

However, should the group proceed with terminating the contract, ADOR warned of severe consequences:

Loss of idol image and brand identity.
Exposure to legal disputes over damages and penalties.
Termination of staff employment within ADOR.
Potential collapse of the label itself.

The agency stressed that the stakes extend beyond just their company: “If this contract is unilaterally broken, ADOR may no longer be able to nurture future talent, and K-pop as a whole could face destabilization.”

They concluded by asserting: “NewJeans is essential—not just for ADOR, but for the future of K-pop. For the group, the company, and the industry, their return is the best path forward.”

As the court proceedings continue and fans watch closely, the legal and emotional tug-of-war between NewJeans and ADOR remains one of the most high-stakes disputes in recent K-pop history.

Source: https://kbizoom.com/ador-newjeans-return-kpop-benefit/

 

[Selfmate]

The agency stressed that the stakes extend beyond just their company: “If this contract is unilaterally broken, ADOR may no longer be able to nurture future talent, and K-pop as a whole could face destabilization.”

interesting slippery slope - this will set a precedent argument

 

[Selfmate]

NJZ’s (Formerly NewJeans) Comments About Being Near ADOR Building Spark Heartbreak

NJZ (formerly known as NewJeans) has sparked heartbreak with their comments about ADOR.

On July 24, NJZ (NewJeans) and their agency ADOR appeared at the Seoul Central District Court on July 24 for the third hearing regarding the validity of the group’s exclusive contracts.

A lot of news came out, including the members speaking about the “one” condition that would allow them to return to ADOR.

During the proceedings, NJZ made a comment that broke the hearts of netizens.

It was revealed that when the members go near the ADOR building, they have major anxiety, mentioning the use of antidepressants.

Just being near the ADOR building makes their hearts race (from anxiety), and it’s to the point where they need to take antidepressants.

— via xportsnews

When netizens saw the impact everything had on NJZ and the comments about antidepressants when getting close to the building, it sparked major heartbreak for the members and anger towards HYBE and ADOR.

Source: https://www.koreaboo.com/news/njz-newjeans-comments-near-ador-building-spark-heartbreak/

 

[catonkatonk]

ADOR Warns: “NewJeans’ Contract Termination Could Damage K-pop”

Why are they arguing in favour of NewJeans.

The agency stressed that the stakes extend beyond just their company: “If this contract is unilaterally broken, ADOR may no longer be able to nurture future talent, and K-pop as a whole could face destabilization.”

interesting slippery slope - this will set a precedent argument

Not at all.
The capital risk of training always exists, as the group could be financially unsuccessful. Allowing a contract termination just throws in an additional risk. However, in giving a judgement, the judge could say that one reason that the contract could be terminated in this case is because the costs of "nurturing the talent" had been fully paid for long before the dispute began. IE: Ador was in (significant) profit even accounting for setup costs. The loss of NewJeans is a loss of FUTURE potential earnings. These earnings are incalculable, and if they are calculable, look to be zero considering it looks like Ador intends to sit on their hands and dungeon the group.

 

[Selfmate]

NJZ (NewJeans) Liken Themselves To “School Violence Victims,” Netizens Outraged By Their Shocking New Petition

Tensions between NJZ (NewJeans) and their agency ADOR continue to escalate following a dramatic court hearing on July 24.

During the latest open court hearing at the Seoul Central District Court, legal representatives for the members shared new claims and even a new petition written by the members which has sparked strong backlash online.

The NJZ members are currently seeking to nullify their exclusive contracts with ADOR, and during the hearing, their lawyer stated that they cannot return to ADOR in its current state. The group’s legal team even claimed the members have to take antidepressants even after just passing by the ADOR building.

The members want to continue their careers in the entertainment industry, but they do not want to do so under ADOR. Even just going near the ADOR building makes their hearts race and forces them to take antidepressants.

— NJZ’s legal team


As part of the proceedings, a handwritten petition by the members was also revealed, drawing particular attention to one controversial comparison. In it, the NJZ members plead with the court, likening themselves to school violence victims.

Telling us to go back to ADOR is like telling a school bullying victim to return to the place where their bully is.

The staff who worked with us have already left, and ADOR is no longer genuinely listening to what we have to say. How loudly do we have to scream before someone realizes how much we’re hurting?

— NJZ’s legal team

However, many netizens were less than sympathetic to the claims, particularly criticizing the school bullying analogy as inappropriate. Some even branded the five members as “hypocrites.”

Source: https://www.koreaboo.com/news/njz-n...tims-netizens-outraged-shocking-new-petition/

 

[Selfmate]

ADOR Accuses Min Hee-jin of Orchestrating NewJeans Contract Termination: “Clear Misrepresentation”

ADOR claims Min Hee-jin was behind NewJeans’ contract dispute and public pressure tactics, as tensions escalate during the ongoing lawsuit.

On July 24, the Seoul Central District Court (Civil Division 41) held the third hearing in ADOR’s lawsuit seeking to confirm the validity of its exclusive contracts with NewJeans members Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein.

During a 30-minute presentation, ADOR’s legal team revealed portions of alleged KakaoTalk messages exchanged by Min Hee-jin, claiming she orchestrated the parents’ protest emails, coached their tone, and meticulously planned a long-term media campaign to justify the group’s departure.

They alleged that Min Hee-jin even coordinated the wording of the emails to match a specific parent’s sentiment, and that she created a list of seven talking points to drive public opinion against ADOR and HYBE. ADOR emphasized that this strategy was not a spontaneous protest but a carefully crafted operation spanning over seven months.

ADOR’s Core Claims

Min Hee-jin was the “mastermind” behind NewJeans’ contract termination.
NewJeans’ parents participated in a media campaign under her guidance.
Live broadcasts and even Hanni’s National Assembly appearance were part of this strategy.
Claims that HYBE had abandoned NewJeans were based on misinterpreted internal reports, and Min Hee-jin did not raise objections when they were first written 18 months ago.

ADOR also rejected accusations tied to the “ignore them” controversy involving an ILLIT manager, clarifying that CCTV footage was deleted after the usual 30-day period, not intentionally erased.

According to ADOR, they provided ample support for NewJeans and fulfilled all contractual obligations, stating, “There is no breach of trust on our side. The claim that HYBE abandoned NewJeans is a clear misrepresentation of facts.”

Earlier, ADOR won a court injunction preserving its management rights and prohibiting NewJeans from independent promotions or new advertisement deals without approval. The court warned that each breach could cost ₩1 billion (~$770,000) per member.

NewJeans’ Position
In contrast, NewJeans’ legal team argues that trust has irreparably broken down, citing management failures, ignored obligations, and a shift in ADOR’s corporate values after Min Hee-jin’s departure. They claim ADOR’s responses to complaints were vague and lacked substance, and that attempts to substitute Min Hee-jin as producer were symbolic at best.

They added that the contract termination was lawful and based on serious breaches, including failures to protect the artists and internal power struggles following HYBE’s consolidation of management.

Despite ADOR’s argument that NewJeans’ reasons for contract termination are inconsistent, the group maintains that the absence of trust and adequate support makes the continuation of the contract impossible.

As both sides gear up for the next phase of the trial, the rift between NewJeans and ADOR shows no signs of resolution.

Source: https://kbizoom.com/ador-newjeans-contract-lawsuit-min-hee-jin/

 

[Selfmate]

Why are they arguing in favour of NewJeans.


Not at all.
The capital risk of training always exists, as the group could be financially unsuccessful.
Allowing a contract termination just throws in an additional risk. However, in giving a judgement,

the judge could say that one reason that the contract could be terminated in this case is because the costs of "nurturing the talent" had been fully paid for long before the dispute began. IE: Ador was in (significant) profit even accounting for setup costs. The loss of NewJeans is a loss of FUTURE potential earnings. These earnings are incalculable, and if they are calculable,

look to be zero considering it looks like Ador intends to sit on their hands and dungeon the group.

1. that's true but that's the case with all groups that haven't yet debut and don't have a history...if a group like njz who does have a history of success - one could extrapolated that success going forward
2. he can say that but that's why we have seven year contracts in kpop no as being the standard since it's not only to pay off the risk but also reap the ample returns if the group is successful.
3. that's for the court to decide

 

[catonkatonk]

1. that's true but that's the case with all groups that haven't yet debut and don't have a history...if a group like njz who does have a history of success - one could extrapolated that success going forward
2. he can say that but that's why we have seven year contracts in kpop no as being the standard since it's not only to pay off the risk but also reap the ample returns if the group is successful.
3. that's for the court to decide

1. That success can't be extrapolated going forward. The market is very unpredictable. Twice went from having 9 consecutive number ones in Korea to basically not charting at all within the span of two years. Anyone projecting their success in 2018 would have been very wrong (yes, they went on to much greater success, but that was internationally, where the consensus was that they had no chance at all). Anyway, any projection that Ador would likely give to the court would include future comebacks which they seem to have no intention of actually providing.

In any case, that wasn't my point. Ador's claim is:
"Well, we need to hold our artists to contracts because otherwise, the capital we invest in training them is at extreme risk."
I'm saying the risk is always there. The majority of k-pop groups do not turn a profit. Companies go bust all the time. For most of the industry, the risk isn't that the idols will leave, it's that they simply won't be successful. That may not be the case for companies like HYBE, but the law should take the view of the many, not the few.
Yes, companies take huge, long-term financial risks in taking on trainees and trying to debut them. I don't care. That's their dice to roll. It should not be the government's position to mitigate that risk. Failure is an essential consequence in a market economy. K-pop companies are not special and do not deserve special protection.

What happens if the seven year contract is abolished? Far fewer groups debut, fewer companies exist. Fine. Good. That's what the market wants. That's what we would say in any other industry. It does not benefit either society nor the individuals for people to be locked into contracts where they labour unprofitably for seven years.

2. I am against the contracts on principle, so for me, the argument doesn't hold. If Ador want to continue to reap "ample returns", then they should be forced to work for it by making the idols want to stay. In other words, they should be forced to continually compete with other agencies not just in terms of production output, but in terms of employment care. Why not? Most other industries operate in this way: They have a free market for labour.
Companies don't lose out altogether anyway, as they continue to control the IP that was created under them (IE, the NewJeans name and back catalogue). They can continue to make money off Hybe Boy for a hundred years, even if nobody working at Ador had anything to do with it at this point in time. I bet that's not something they're going to cry about though, right?

3. No, the court does not decide reality.

 

[catonkatonk]

I think the closest comparison to this in any other industry that I can think of is commercial leasing.
And yes, sure, you can lease for an arbitrary number of years, and then be tied in for that period.

But also no:
Almost all commercial leases have break clauses that can be activated in a number of ways, and sometimes can be activated without cause at certain periods.
But beyond that, almost all commercial leases are between corporate entities. If your company cannot afford to continue the lease, you file for bankruptcy, and you, the individual, eventually escape liability. Then you're free to set-up elsewhere if you have the capital.
But beyond THAT, there are mutual covenants protecting both parties from the malice of the other. If the premises is rendered unusable for example, the contract is null and void. A commercial landlord cannot unilaterally "trap" a tenant.

Let's apply it to NewJeans, or any other k-pop group:
The individuals can't leave, not for seven years. If the company tells them to perform, they must perform. If they do want to leave, or refuse to perform, then they - personally - are saddled with an gigantic termination fee. This could be of a size that could ruin the rest of their life.
An idol can go seven years without being paid, despite putting in the labour. They have no influence in the direction of their labour either: The failure of the group is not necessarily down to them, it could be down to a concept that they have no control over. And yet, when album sales come in, the company takes the money before they do. Win or lose, the idol gets paid last (if there is any money left to be paid at all).
What are the company's obligations in return?
Well, as we have seen time and again, the company has virtually no obligations. They can basically dungeon the group for the duration of the contract. They can do this, while seemingly keeping the contract alive.
What does that mean for the individual?
1. They likely have a debt to the company (at the very least, for things like dorms etc.) that they can't pay off because the company isn't providing them with earning opportunities.
2. They cannot use their talent outside of the company to earn for themselves or pay the debt off. So their only method of earning money will be in industries within which they have no training (and therefore very limited earning potential - I've seen idols work in coffee shops etc.)

How is this arrangement beneficial to society as a large?

And that's the question I want people to ask themselves. Not to get caught up in the specifics, not to think of this in terms of who is right, who is wrong, or who is the injured party in this particular circumstance.
I'm asking for a broader view. Given all the permutations of circumstances that can arise given the current legal system, does society as a whole benefit?
I think the answer is obviously no, so I will always support those who fight against this system irrespective of the merits of their individual case. Because they will always be correct on principle.

 

[Selfmate]

1. That success can't be extrapolated going forward. The market is very unpredictable. Twice went from having 9 consecutive number ones in Korea to basically not charting at all within the span of two years. Anyone projecting their success in 2018 would have been very wrong (yes, they went on to much greater success, but that was internationally, where the consensus was that they had no chance at all). Anyway, any projection that Ador would likely give to the court would include future comebacks which they seem to have no intention of actually providing.

In any case, that wasn't my point. Ador's claim is:
"Well, we need to hold our artists to contracts because otherwise, the capital we invest in training them is at extreme risk."
I'm saying the risk is always there. The majority of k-pop groups do not turn a profit. Companies go bust all the time. For most of the industry, the risk isn't that the idols will leave, it's that they simply won't be successful. That may not be the case for companies like HYBE, but the law should take the view of the many, not the few.
Yes, companies take huge, long-term financial risks in taking on trainees and trying to debut them. I don't care. That's their dice to roll. It should not be the government's position to mitigate that risk. Failure is an essential consequence in a market economy. K-pop companies are not special and do not deserve special protection.

I completely agree which is why they are going to court no to decide the merits of the contractual dispute. I don't see much government intervention in this case unless it's the National Assembly thingy unless you are claiming laissez faire economics?

What happens if the seven year contract is abolished? Far fewer groups debut, fewer companies exist. Fine. Good. That's what the market wants. That's what we would say in any other industry. It does not benefit either society nor the individuals for people to be locked into contracts where they labour unprofitably for seven years.

but it is the people who choose to sign up to such contracts no? I mean as I understand it SME previously had even longer contracts but the courts said nope and limited it them to seven right?

2. I am against the contracts on principle, so for me, the argument doesn't hold. If Ador want to continue to reap "ample returns", then they should be forced to work for it by making the idols want to stay. In other words, they should be forced to continually compete with other agencies not just in terms of production output, but in terms of employment care. Why not? Most other industries operate in this way: They have a free market for labour.
Companies don't lose out altogether anyway, as they continue to control the IP that was created under them (IE, the NewJeans name and back catalogue). They can continue to make money off Hybe Boy for a hundred years, even if nobody working at Ador had anything to do with it at this point in time. I bet that's not something they're going to cry about though, right?

3. No, the court does not decide reality.

why are you against contracts my friend?
that's just IP law no?

whether ador intends to dungeon them or otherwise it's a matter for the court to decide no? I mean that's one of the arguments raised by NJZ side that they intended to dungeon them and obviously ador claims otherwise...

 

[catonkatonk]

why are you against contracts my friend?
that's just IP law no?

whether ador intends to dungeon them or otherwise it's a matter for the court to decide no? I mean that's one of the arguments raised by NJZ side that they intended to dungeon them and obviously ador claims otherwise...

I think my second post outlines the obvious inequity of the current system. I'd love to see an argument against it tbh.

Whatever the court decides on what Ador intends to do has no bearing on what Ador actually intends to do. I could be wrong and they announce a NewJeans comeback tomorrow. That's the thing that would make financial sense, and what a rational organisation would do. But what we have clearly seen is that no party involved in this dispute is behaving rationally.

"Whether or not OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown is for the courts to decide"
Legally, sure, but they can't make pronouncements on reality, and we saw the divergence of those two things in that particular case, didn't we?

 

[Selfmate]

I think the closest comparison to this in any other industry that I can think of is commercial leasing.
And yes, sure, you can lease for an arbitrary number of years, and then be tied in for that period.

But also no:
Almost all commercial leases have break clauses that can be activated in a number of ways, and sometimes can be activated without cause at certain periods. in which case such a thing is written into the contract right? like there is no break clause at will or under general contract law correct?

But beyond that, almost all commercial leases are between corporate entities. If your company cannot afford to continue the lease, you file for bankruptcy, and you, the individual, eventually escape liability. Then you're free to set-up elsewhere if you have the capital.
But beyond THAT, there are mutual covenants protecting both parties from the malice of the other. If the premises is rendered unusable for example, the contract is null and void. A commercial landlord cannot unilaterally "trap" a tenant.

parties have free will to negotiate the terms of the lease - I'm not talking about bargaining power but rather the free will to enter into the lease. whether malice is involved depends on the party's evidence and whether they can convince a court or arbitrator one way or another no?

Let's apply it to NewJeans, or any other k-pop group:
The individuals can't leave, not for seven years. If the company tells them to perform, they must perform. If they do want to leave, or refuse to perform, then they - personally - are saddled with an gigantic termination fee. This could be of a size that could ruin the rest of their life.
An idol can go seven years without being paid, despite putting in the labour. They have no influence in the direction of their labour either: The failure of the group is not necessarily down to them, it could be down to a concept that they have no control over. And yet, when album sales come in, the company takes the money before they do. Win or lose, the idol gets paid last (if there is any money left to be paid at all).
What are the company's obligations in return?
Well, as we have seen time and again, the company has virtually no obligations. They can basically dungeon the group for the duration of the contract. They can do this, while seemingly keeping the contract alive.
What does that mean for the individual?

I completely agree with you which is why I would never ever allow either of my children to enter into such contracts but it doesn't mean that others share our views my friend. They wish to enter into something that dodgy and risky for the perceived upside - that's their risk to take no?

1. They likely have a debt to the company (at the very least, for things like dorms etc.) that they can't pay off because the company isn't providing them with earning opportunities.
2. They cannot use their talent outside of the company to earn for themselves or pay the debt off. So their only method of earning money will be in industries within which they have no training (and therefore very limited earning potential - I've seen idols work in coffee shops etc.)

How is this arrangement beneficial to society as a large?

And that's the question I want people to ask themselves. Not to get caught up in the specifics, not to think of this in terms of who is right, who is wrong, or who is the injured party in this particular circumstance.
I'm asking for a broader view. Given all the permutations of circumstances that can arise given the current legal system, does society as a whole benefit?
I think the answer is obviously no, so I will always support those who fight against this system irrespective of the merits of their individual case. Because they will always be correct on principle.

I've always said that these contracts are dodgy as hell but individuals choose to sign them...no one forces an individual to become a trainee - no one forces someone to enter into a kpop contract - if we as fans or laymen understand the dodginess of such then surely a kpop trainee or potential debutee would as well...

I've said it before that all kpop idols need to understand what the F they are getting themselves in and hire a bloody lawyer and if they cannot afford a lawyer they cannot afford to give seven (plus trainee) years of their life under a slave contract. I also understand the realities that merely having a lawyer won't necessarily change things but at least one is more aware of the circumstances under the contract and the terms there and can make an informed decision of whether to sign or not

 

[Selfmate]

I think my second post outlines the obvious inequity of the current system. I'd love to see an argument against it tbh.

Whatever the court decides on what Ador intends to do has no bearing on what Ador actually intends to do. I could be wrong and they announce a NewJeans comeback tomorrow. That's the thing that would make financial sense, and what a rational organisation would do. But what we have clearly seen is that no party involved in this dispute is behaving rationally.

"Whether or not OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown is for the courts to decide"
Legally, sure, but they can't make pronouncements on reality, and we saw the divergence of those two things in that particular case, didn't we?

I'm not arguing against the system I'm agreeing with that you that yes there is obviously inequalities in every system legal - financial etc etc
however we are all citizens and "slaves" to said system and we have to live within that system...
one can complain (not necessarily you my friend) about the system and it's inequalities all day but that doesn't change the system - if one wants to change the system and argue and protest - be my guest they have my fullest support however I have to live within that system and I make do the best I can for myself and my family (maybe that's selfish maybe that's just self survivial???)

history is determined by the victors - those who "win" get to dictate the narrative just as whoever wins this case either hybe or ador or MHJ or NJZ get to dictate how the story goes

if NJZ win it's them rallying against the system and beating a conglomerate and the poor group being bullied by an unscrupulous entity
if Hybe wins then no bullying no malice just a group of greedy artists who would use any method to get out of a legally binding contact

 

[catonkatonk]

So, firstly, things such as break clauses are generally standard. No, they're not in common law. But they are expected.

The rest of your post is about agency: People have agency when signing contracts, they know what they're getting into, so tough luck.

I have a couple problems with this.
1. The principle that "you signed it, so tough" is not legally sound, at least not here in the UK. There are things such as "unfair terms" which cannot be enforced. Also, and I think this should be obvious: It is impossible for an individual to contract away their legal rights. I personally choose to take a broader view: It's impossible for an individual to contract away their human rights. And I consider freedom of employment a human right, because money is required to take advantage of pretty much all other rights (other than speech) in a capitalist system.
2. There are no alternatives. The existing arrangement is the standard, and the gatekeepers to the industry have no incentive to change that. You can say, "okay, but that just means that all idols are making an internal calculation that it's worth it in the end". And, suuuure, that's true, but there's a degree of coercion in making that decision because of the lack of alternatives. In any case, this applies to the signing of contracts, not the challenging of the system. Do you see? You can still sign and then challenge the system which made these contracts common place. If you're saying that people who have signed these contracts cannot agitate for change because "well, you signed the contract", then no change will ever happen. And then you have to argue against, for example, TVXQ, who, yes, voluntarily signed "slave contracts" that were deemed to be unfair.

On a broader philosophical point, you seem to argue that neither the state nor society can have any say in the contractual relations between two individuals. However, you ignore that it is the structure of state and society that creates inequalities which parties can exploit to the expense of the other. Part of our legal system exists to counter-act the power of these inequalities and restore a semblance of balance. And even in Korea, even in the idol industry, it has happened before.

Unless your position is that TVXQ should never have challenged their contracts?

Think about it another way: If we say the system is unfair, but the people who are operating in it cannot challenge it because they agreed to be in it, then who CAN challenge it? You can't argue the merits of a contract that you're not inside. Not legally, anyway. I can't go to court trying to free my fave from their companies, because the company has no contractual relationship with me.