Evidence related to former ADOR chief executive Min Hee-jin's alleged "tampering" (inducing a breach of an exclusive contract) has been disclosed in a damages lawsuit ADOR filed against former NewJeans member Danielle and Min. The industry is watching closely to see whether this evidence could also affect the ongoing shareholder agreement confirmation suit between HYBE and Min.
According to the entertainment and legal sectors on the 5th, ADOR disclosed a Sept. 2, 2024 transcript at the third hearing in its damages suit against Danielle and her family, and former chief executive Min. The transcript includes Min telling NewJeans' parents, "We have to push ahead with the live broadcast. We need to create evidence for the termination lawsuit."
Min was reportedly trying to join a live broadcast conducted by NewJeans members but said the tampering issue needed to be handled separately. Tampering refers to acts in which another club or a third party contacts a player or artist who is still under contract to induce a transfer.
The tampering allegation is a key variable that could determine the legal outcome across the NewJeans case. Although the trials involving ADOR and NewJeans, and HYBE and former chief executive Min, differ in their points of contention, they share the factual question of whether Min tried to induce NewJeans, still under contract, to break away. In professional sports, when a tampering case erupts, leagues impose fines on clubs or officials or hand down penalties such as suspensions.
In the first-instance ruling on the suit to confirm termination of the shareholder agreement between HYBE and former chief executive Min, Min's alleged tampering was not accepted. At the time, the court said, "It can be recognized that Min Hee-jin sought ways to weaken HYBE's control over ADOR and to independently control ADOR," but added, "The mere fact of seeking ways to independently control ADOR cannot be seen as a material breach of the shareholder agreement."
The entertainment industry assessed the ruling as having "granted absolution for tampering." The Korea Entertainment Producers' Association argued, "It sends a dangerous message that even if tampering was schemed, if it was not carried out or was discovered before execution, a free pass could be given."
The Korea Music Content Association also said, "We express concern that acts that could be recognized in the industry as tampering may be interpreted as legitimate management activities or accepted as acts that carry no responsibility."
With the newly disclosed evidence, debate over tampering is expected to flare up again. As ADOR presents specific indications of Min's involvement in this suit, some say the center of gravity in the assessment could shift. Beyond determining whether it remained at the stage of "seeking before execution" or constituted actual inducement to breach an exclusive contract, it could also affect fact-finding in the lawsuit between HYBE and former chief executive Min.
However, because the same panel (Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 31) is handling both the ADOR versus Danielle and former chief executive Min suit and the first-instance suit to confirm termination of the shareholder agreement between HYBE and former chief executive Min, and because there are few precedents that squarely address tampering, there is a possibility that relevant legal principles will be refined at higher courts going forward.
A legal industry source said, "In Korea, there have been many cases judged more on individual contract breaches or torts than on tampering itself," and added, "If the newly submitted evidence influences fact-finding and the same evidence is submitted in other cases, it could become a factor in civil suits that deal with similar facts."