[theqoo] SIMPLE SUMMARY OF THE COURT RULING FOR NEWJEANS

NewJeans: We will terminate our contract with Ador.
→ Court: There is no significant reason that appears to justify contract termination.

NewJeans: Dismissing CEO Min Heejin is a serious violation of management.
→ Court: This was a decision made based on Ador’s business judgment, and there is nothing in the contract that mandates CEO Min must be in charge of production.

NewJeans: Allegations of plagiarism of “ILLIT,” and a comment by a HYBE employee saying, “Ignore Hanni.”
→ Court: These issues have not been substantiated enough to be considered grounds for contract termination.

NewJeans: Ador ruined the collaborative relationship with the advertising agency “Dolphiners.”
→ Court: Dolphiners are not a party to this case, and even if there was a dispute between them and Ador, it is difficult to see this as grounds for contract termination.

NewJeans: Ador neglected management after dismissing CEO Min.
→ Court: Your unilateral notification of contract termination also affected management operations.

NewJeans: We will independently work as NJZ, separate from Ador.
→ Court: This is not possible.

NewJeans: Then, what would be recognized as grounds for contract termination?
→ Court: There are none. On the contrary, Ador took the risk of failure and invested heavily in you from the time you were a trainee, fulfilling their settlement obligations. Demanding unilateral contract termination just two years after success would cause significant damage to them.