The first-trial ruling in the ADOR–NewJeans case has been finalized. With the ruling finalized, the court's finding that "former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin planned to make NewJeans independent" is expected to be used as a key basis in the lawsuits between HYBE and the former CEO. It could bolster HYBE's claim that "there is cause to terminate the contract with the former CEO."
According to legal sources on the 17th, HYBE is said to have submitted to the court on the 12th a preparatory brief citing part of the legal reasoning from the ruling confirming the validity of the ADOR–NewJeans exclusive contract, for use in its lawsuit against the former CEO.
HYBE is currently pursuing a shareholder agreement lawsuit and a stock sale price claim lawsuit against the former CEO. Both cases are proceeding before the same panel.
Earlier, in the ADOR–NewJeans lawsuit, the court held that "the former CEO prepared a media campaign, reports to relevant agencies, and lawsuits with the intent to separate NewJeans from HYBE." As neither side appealed, the ruling was finalized.
The panel wrote, "[The former CEO] planned to create public opinion that HYBE had treated NewJeans unfairly by putting the parents of NewJeans at the forefront while staying out of sight," adding, "It appears there was also an effort to look for an investor to acquire ADOR, and the former CEO's conduct cannot be seen as intended to protect NewJeans from nonperformance of obligations under the exclusive contract."
The finalized ruling in the ADOR–NewJeans case is highly likely to affect the lawsuits between HYBE and the former CEO. In the shareholder agreement suit, the key issue is which side first breached its contractual obligations and created grounds for termination.
HYBE filed a lawsuit to terminate the shareholder agreement, alleging that the former CEO breached the contract by, among other things, planning and attempting to pull NewJeans out.
The former CEO, meanwhile, argues there was no breach of contract and that HYBE's notice of termination is invalid. Depending on the ruling on the legality of the termination, it will also be decided whether the former CEO can receive about 26 billion won from HYBE.
By invoking the legal reasoning of the first-trial ruling in the ADOR–NewJeans case, HYBE now has more room to actively argue that grounds for termination arose.
Had the ADOR–NewJeans case moved to the appellate stage, the facts surrounding the "plan for NewJeans' independence" could have been reassessed. But with the ruling finalized, the opportunity to contest that has disappeared. While findings of fact do not automatically carry over to other rulings, they serve as important grounds in judging the overall case in similar lawsuits.
Given that the court accepted the former CEO's attempt at independence as fact, it likely will serve as a key criterion in the HYBE–former CEO suit for determining which party first betrayed contractual trust.
When news broke of NewJeans' return, the former CEO said, "The lawsuits between me and HYBE are entirely separate from and unrelated to NewJeans."
A legal industry source said, "Because these are separate lawsuits, the panel is not obligated to follow the factual finding of a 'plan for NewJeans' independence,'" but added, "Factual determinations in finalized rulings carry high credibility and probative value."
Attorney Kim Yeon-su of One Law Partners' media and entertainment team said, "The Supreme Court has consistently held that facts recognized in a related civil case that has already been finalized become powerful evidence absent special circumstances, and cannot be rejected without reasonable grounds."
Kim added, "Unless new evidence is submitted or different circumstances are revealed, the facts recognized in the first-trial ruling between ADOR and NewJeans can be considered powerful evidence in other lawsuits as well."