steve w

@juantokki 2 of 2 after these financial obligations have been met, both parties should be allowed to negotiate a new contract. Other things in the contract should speak to mistreat of members and member obligations. New Jeans has met 10x over met all finan obligations and should be free.

Hurt: Waiting for Five Girls snujn.com/news/articleVi… By Kang Min-seo “I’m not gonna be the one to get hurt.” Leaving their agency, ADOR, constituted a breach of contract by NewJeans. That was the court’s ruling in October 2025. One by one, the five members expressed their intention to return. But two months later, on December 29, ADOR notified member Danielle that her exclusive contract had been terminated. The company then filed a damages lawsuit against Danielle, her family, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin, seeking a total of ₩43.1 billion in compensation.* The company dismissed an idol who had already agreed to return. *As of June 4, it was confirmed that the total amount sought by the plaintiff had been reduced from approximately ₩43.1 billion to ₩33.1 billion. It has not been disclosed how the proportions of damages and contractual penalties were adjusted. A company can choose to maintain a contract or terminate it at its own discretion. At the same time, it can turn an idol into someone burdened with enormous debt. The idol—an equal party to the same contract—cannot do the same. This asymmetry has remained unresolved since the birth of the K-pop industry. It has now been over a year since NewJeans disappeared from the stage. I still remember the girls calmly singing that they would not be the ones to get hurt. Where did NewJeans go? This is a look back at the wounds left behind by HYBE and ADOR. ⸻ “Conflict, Contracts, and the Choice of Five” It all began in April 2024. Then-ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin sent an internal whistleblower email to HYBE’s executives. It raised concerns about album push sales,* discrimination between labels, and BELIFT LAB’s alleged plagiarism of NewJeans’ concept. HYBE responded immediately. On April 22, it launched an audit, claiming that Min had attempted to seize management control, and in August of that year, removed her from her position as CEO—just five days before NewJeans’ comeback. *Album push sales: A practice in which an agency artificially inflates first-week album sales by offloading large quantities of albums in advance to distributors or wholesalers. The conflict escalated after Min Hee-jin’s press conference on April 25. During meetings with NewJeans’ parents, HYBE executives reportedly signaled the possibility of a temporary suspension of the group’s activities. At the same time, HYBE launched a full-scale media campaign. Private messages unrelated to the dispute were leaked to the press, and the members’ personal information was exposed. A sitting journalist later revealed circumstances suggesting that HYBE’s head of PR had attempted “reverse viral marketing”*—allegedly encouraging the media to undermine NewJeans’ achievements and frame a conflict between Min Hee-jin and the members. *Reverse viral marketing: The organized spread of malicious comments and negative public opinion through online communities or social media in order to damage someone’s reputation. On August 27, 2024, Min Hee-jin was dismissed. She was replaced by Kim Ju-young, HYBE’s Chief Human Resources Officer. During NewJeans’ subsequent livestream, the members revealed that they had learned about the news through media reports. It had been a unilateral decision by the company, with no communication whatsoever with the members. NewJeans then began speaking for themselves. On November 13, 2024, the group sent ADOR a certified notice titled “Request for Correction of Violations of the Exclusive Contract.” It was the formal contract termination procedure under the Popular Culture and Arts Industry Development Act. Two weeks later, on November 28, they held an emergency press conference, declaring that because the relationship of trust had completely broken down, their contract with ADOR would terminate at midnight the following day. ADOR immediately responded by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity of the exclusive contract, and in March of the following year, the court granted a preliminary injunction* prohibiting NewJeans from carrying out independent activities. *Preliminary injunction: A temporary court order issued to preserve the status quo or establish provisional legal relations while waiting for a final judgment. It was unprecedented in K-pop for five artists—including minors—to hold their own press conference against a major entertainment agency and publicly announce the termination of their contracts. In doing so, they brought an old question back to the surface: What rights can artists actually exercise within a contractual relationship? And when disputes arise, whose side does the exclusive contract system truly stand on? ⸻ “The Wall Called the “Exclusive Contract”” An exclusive contract is one in which an artist delegates full authority over the management and representation of their entertainment career to an agency. The agency arranges activities, handles promotion and negotiations, and settles earnings. For entertainers, whose careers are difficult to sustain without agency support, signing an exclusive contract is practically unavoidable. The problem lies in bargaining power. Unlike agencies, which determine whether an artist debuts, entertainers have little ability to negotiate terms on equal footing. On paper, the contract appears to be between equal parties, but in practice its terms are often tilted against the artist. That is why, in 2009, the Korea Fair Trade Commission introduced the Standard Exclusive Contract. NewJeans also followed the termination procedure outlined in that Standard Exclusive Contract. The standard contract grants both the agency and the artist an equal right to terminate the agreement. But equality on paper did not translate into equality in reality. Terminating an exclusive contract is far more difficult than ending a typical employment contract. Agencies invest enormous sums into idols from their trainee years onward. Since success after debut is never guaranteed, they take significant financial risks. In return, idols promise continuous activities and share their earnings with the company. If either side could easily terminate the contract, the damage to the other party would be substantial. As a result, courts have consistently set a high threshold for termination. Even so, legal precedent has also consistently held that termination may be justified if the relationship of trust has deteriorated to the point that continuing the contract would violate the artist’s personal rights against their free will, even in the absence of a particularly grave cause. NewJeans based their claim precisely on this “breakdown of trust.” They cited: ▲ the unjust dismissal of CEO Min Hee-jin ▲ the leak of trainee-era videos and photographs ▲ insults toward NewJeans’ achievements by HYBE’s PR personnel ▲ bullying by a BELIFT LAB manager ▲ damage to the group’s unique identity by BELIFT LAB ▲ provoking conflict with music video production company Dolphin Kidnappers ▲ and HYBE’s album push sales practices. The court concluded that these circumstances did not rise to the level of violating the members’ personal rights. Attorney Jang Seung-woo, who specializes in entertainment law and exclusive contract disputes, explained, “Courts have always interpreted the breakdown of trust as grounds for terminating exclusive contracts very strictly.” However, he added that “this ruling is a case where the court interpreted the degree of that breakdown even more narrowly and more strictly.” In other words, the court made clear that an artist’s subjective dissatisfaction or frustration over management decisions would not, by itself, constitute a breakdown of trust. The ruling left two major disappointments. The first concerns timing. Roughly three months after NewJeans lost their case, Min Hee-jin won her first-instance lawsuit against HYBE in February of this year. The court recognized that HYBE had encouraged ADOR to engage in album push sales, while rejecting HYBE’s allegations that Min had attempted to poach NewJeans from ADOR through tampering. It also found that it was HYBE’s leaked exclusive news reports that first escalated the dispute into the public sphere, and that Min Hee-jin’s response constituted a legitimate exercise of her right of reply. Attorney Jang Seung-woo remarked, “If Min Hee-jin’s victory had come before the NewJeans ruling, it could have influenced the outcome of that case.” The second concerns proof. “Proving a breakdown of trust in an exclusive contract termination case is incredibly difficult.” Those are the words of Attorney Jang Seung-woo, who has handled numerous exclusive contract termination lawsuits. The burden falls on the party seeking termination to prove that trust has irreparably broken down. More often than not, that party is an individual idol—not a corporation. Securing evidence is difficult. Enduring lengthy and expensive litigation is equally difficult. While the legal battle continues, the artist’s career comes to a halt. That is why calls to improve the Standard Exclusive Contract and strengthen protections for entertainers have never ceased. Attorney Jang added, “Separate from the wording of the exclusive contract itself, the court could have placed greater emphasis on Min Hee-jin’s role, the factual circumstances, and the individual details of the case.” But the final ruling went the other way. As a result, NewJeans was forced to return to the very place where those who had belittled them remained. Despite promises that a new producer would be appointed, ADOR’s producer position still sits vacant. The people who once supported the NewJeans of the past are no longer there. K-pop is both a cultural industry and an industry of culture. It is art created by people, together with people. Yet one cannot help but ask whether the law has become too consumed by industrial logic alone. Looking at what happened to Danielle only makes that question even clearer. ⸻ “Eleven Months of Litigation, One Instant Contract Termination” From NewJeans’ declaration terminating their contracts in December 2024 to their court defeat in October 2025, the five members spent eleven months fighting one of the biggest entertainment companies in Korea. Danielle’s contract, by contrast, was terminated in an instant. The cracks first appeared during the return process. Haerin and Hyein’s return was announced through ADOR’s official statement. Minji, Hanni, and Danielle, however, expressed their intention to return through their law firm rather than through ADOR. No official consultation with the company had taken place. Those three members shared something in common: they had been the most outspoken throughout the dispute with ADOR. Hanni personally appeared before the National Assembly’s audit to testify about workplace harassment. Minji consistently took the lead in livestreams and press conferences. Danielle was no different. On December 29—the very day Hanni’s decision to remain with ADOR became official—ADOR announced that it was terminating Danielle’s exclusive contract and would seek damages against her. Initially, ADOR demanded a contractual penalty* of ₩30 billion and ₩3.1 billion in damages from Danielle. It additionally sought approximately ₩10 billion in damages from Danielle’s mother and former CEO Min Hee-jin. ADOR stated that it intended to hold “Danielle’s family member and former CEO Min Hee-jin legally responsible for creating the dispute and bearing significant responsibility for NewJeans’ departure and delayed return.” *Contractual penalty: A monetary penalty imposed as a sanction for breach of contract. ADOR could have filed identical lawsuits against every member based on the same allegations—violating the exclusive contract, engaging in independent activities, or contacting another agency (tampering). Instead, it singled out Danielle alone. Targeting the person who resisted most fiercely, making an example out of them, and pressuring everyone else is hardly an unfamiliar tactic in labor disputes. Under such a structure, speaking up becomes increasingly difficult. The “equality” written into the Standard Exclusive Contract remains a distant ideal. In court, ADOR stated that it would fully support the members if they returned. It never suggested that it would selectively hold certain members responsible or single anyone out. Its decision to dismiss Danielle—the very member who had agreed to return—stands in direct contradiction to that statement. In a damages lawsuit, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff: ADOR. The company must prove the causal connection between Danielle’s actions and the damages it claims to have suffered. Attorney Jang Seung-woo explained, “How specifically ADOR is able to prove those claims during litigation could significantly affect both the scope of damages and the amount ultimately awarded. There is also a strong possibility that the amount could end up being much lower.” In other words, there is no guarantee that the original ₩43.1 billion claim will ultimately be recognized. Yet it was ADOR—the party required to prove its damages—that delayed the proceedings. Preparatory hearings did not begin until March 26 of this year. Then, on April 24, five attorneys from Kim & Chang, who had been representing ADOR, abruptly withdrew from the case—all at once. That came four months after the lawsuit had already been filed. At the first hearing on May 14, Danielle’s attorney accused ADOR of engaging in “blatant and malicious delays of the proceedings.” For an idol at the height of her career, even several months away from the stage can be devastating in itself. On May 28, the court issued ADOR an order to prepare clarification materials. This is a procedural order requiring a party to supplement vague arguments or insufficient evidence. More than six months after the lawsuit had been filed, the court determined that ADOR’s evidence and litigation plan remained inadequate.* *It has since been confirmed that, by the June 2 deadline set by the court, plaintiff ADOR submitted its preparatory brief and evidence plan, while also filing an application to amend both its claims and the grounds for those claims. Compared to the imbalance of power between entertainment companies and individual idols, the institutional safeguards meant to correct that imbalance remain insufficient. When disputes arise, idols are often forced to confront major agencies as supposedly “equal” contracting parties—with little meaningful protection. Although the current Standard Exclusive Contract includes certain responsibilities and obligations for agencies, it still leaves significant gaps when it comes to practically protecting the rights of idols, who occupy the weaker position. ⸻ “What NewJeans Left Behind for Us” Within this chronic imbalance, idols struggle through exhausting battles to terminate exclusive contracts, while agencies can act against them with relative ease. Compared to the remarkable growth of the K-pop industry, its institutional foundations remain fragile. The NewJeans case reminds us once again of that gap. According to the Korea Creative Content Agency’s 2025 Survey on the Popular Culture and Arts Industry, the Standard Exclusive Contract is used in 95.3% of contracts between entertainment agencies and artists. But widespread use does not necessarily mean adequate protection. Attorney Jang Seung-woo argues that “the Standard Exclusive Contract needs stronger mechanisms to protect individuals.” Beyond the existing provisions requiring correction of contractual breaches, he believes the contract should more specifically define circumstances under which individuals may terminate their contracts—for example, health-related reasons. Strengthening the right to terminate a contract will not eliminate unfairness altogether. But it could at least prevent artists from remaining trapped in abusive contracts for years. Fairness in exclusive contracts depends not only on how contracts are signed, but also on whether the right to end them is guaranteed in a balanced manner. Contractual penalties deserve particular attention. The Standard Exclusive Contract includes contractual penalties to discourage entertainers from unilaterally terminating agreements. Because they function as punishment rather than compensation, the amount is determined independently of the agency’s actual damages. Even when the amount is excessive, reducing it through the courts is difficult. Attorney Jang notes that “the Standard Exclusive Contract needs more specific provisions defining the grounds for damages and contractual penalties, as well as their scope.” There is also a more fundamental proposal: placing the responsibility for maintaining the relationship of trust primarily on the agency rather than the idol. At the time these contracts are signed, entertainers are often minors. The seven-year exclusive contract period also heavily favors agencies. Given that the contracts overwhelmingly benefit the company, it follows that agencies should bear the greater responsibility for preserving that relationship of trust. Hanni testified before the National Assembly regarding workplace harassment, but the Ministry of Employment and Labor declined to recognize idols as “workers.” Idols therefore occupy a legal gray area. Because they are not legally recognized as workers, they struggle to receive the protections of labor law, and the avenues available for enforcing their rights remain limited. This has prompted calls to interpret worker status more broadly. In a Korean society where nearly three million people work under special employment arrangements, labor rights for idols are no longer an issue that concerns only them. Regardless of who won or lost in court, NewJeans’ story remains meaningful. They exposed longstanding structural problems that had long been accepted as inevitable. They refused to remain silent in the face of unfairness. Because no one else could speak for them, they willingly chose to bear that burden with their own voices. May the wounds suffered by those we so passionately support never be repeated. Borrowing Danielle’s words from their final performance: “We had to speak up to protect the values we believe in, and we don’t regret it at all.” 여기까지야 네가 와있는 곳은 너무 멀었어 I’m not gonna be the one to get hurt 나는 상처받는 사람이 되지 않을 거야 — Hurt, by NewJeans

@juantokki 1 of 2 Yes, these contractual obligation need to protect both parties. Ador via NJZ proceeds has paid all training, travel, etc. expenses. Beyond that ador should be able to get a profit for the risk they took. All this should be simply a mathematical calculation. 1 of 2

@juantokki Good comments and true info

이 글이 말하려는 취지는 어느 정도 이해는 감. 근데 난 이 글은 번역해서 올리진 않을 거임. 오히려 이 글 자체가 자기 한계를 그대로 보여주고 있다고 생각해서. 결국 이 글도 왜 서구권 해석이 기준이 됐는지는 안 따지고, 그 해석 자체를 전제로 얘기를 풀어가고 있음. 예술은 물론 여러 해석이 가능함. 근데 작품을 진지하게 분석하고 비판하려면 맥락은 절대 빼놓을 수 없음. 인터넷에서 이상한 사람들이 갖다 붙인 해석만 믿고, 공식 설명이나 노래가 만들어진 맥락은 전부 무시하면 결국 같은 얘기만 계속 반복하게 될 뿐임. 한 번 생각해보셈. 뉴진스가 그동안 보여준 이미지나 분위기에서 그런 해석이 자연스럽게 나올 만한 요소가 있었음? 그게 뉴진스 음악이나 브랜딩, 작업물의 일관된 방향이었음? 아니라면 굳이 왜 그런 프레임을 씌우려고 하는 거임? 결국 중요한 건 패턴임. 하나만 떼서 보지 말고 전체를 봐야 함. 쿠키 논란은 그냥 노래 한 곡에 대한 논란이 아니었음. 오히려 한국 안에서도 보편적으로 받아들여진 적 없는 서구권의 언어적·성적 해석이 얼마나 빠르게 한국 문화 담론의 기준이 되어버렸는지를 보여준 사건이었다고 생각함. 이 글의 가장 큰 문제는 그 논란이 애초에 어디서 시작됐는지 제대로 따져보지도 않은 채, 그 논란 자체를 당연히 진지하게 다뤄야 할 문제로 받아들이고 있다는 점임. ‘쿠키’ 논란은 사실상 일부 영어권 사람들이 평범한 단어에 특정 슬랭 의미를 부여하면서 시작된 거였음. 영어에서 cookie의 기본적인 뜻은 그냥 과자임. 물론 성적인 슬랭으로 쓰이는 경우도 있긴 하지만, 논란이 터지기 전까지는 영어권 사람들조차 그런 의미가 있는지 몰랐던 경우가 훨씬 많았음. 그런데 어느 순간 그 소수의 해석이 한국 노래를 평가하는 기준처럼 되어버렸음. 이게 더 문제 아닌가? 왜 한국 음악이 일부 서구권 슬랭을 기준으로 평가받아야 함? 왜 한국 창작자들이 영어권 어디선가 쓰이는 온갖 이중적인 의미까지 하나하나 다 예상해야 함? 만약 다른 문화권의 일부 사람들이 예상치 못한 의미를 찾아냈다는 이유만으로 한국이 계속 자기 표현을 검열하기 시작하면, 그건 더 이상 한국 문화가 자기 기준으로 발전하는 게 아님. 결국 서구권 문화 규범이나 인터넷 담론에 끌려다니는 문화가 되는 거지. 아이러니한 건 이 글이 집단적 도덕주의를 비판하면서도, 정작 서구에서 들어온 또 다른 형태의 집단적 도덕주의를 그대로 답습하고 있다는 점임. 쿠키 논란도 단순히 미성년자를 보호하자는 문제만은 아니었음. 오히려 영미권 특유의, 평범한 단어나 비유까지도 성적인 의미로 읽어내는 경향이 크게 작용한 사건에 가까웠음. 한국 사람들이 실제로 그 노래를 그렇게 받아들였는지는 제대로 묻지도 않은 채, 해외에서는 서구권의 해석이 정답인 것처럼 전제해버렸음. 오히려 그런 전제야말로 더 비판적으로 들여다봐야 하는 거 아님? 물론 그렇다고 K팝 산업이 비판받지 말아야 한다는 얘기는 아님. 미성년자, 동의, 자율성, 착취 같은 문제는 분명 중요하고 계속 논의돼야 함. 하지만 그런 논의는 실제 근거를 바탕으로 해야지, 한국 창작자들이 영어권의 온갖 생소한 슬랭이나 계속 바뀌는 서구 SNS의 도덕 기준까지 맞춰야 한다는 전제 위에서 이뤄져서는 안 됨. 이 글은 뉴진스한테 직접 물어봤어야 했다고도 말함. 물론 멤버들의 목소리를 듣는 건 중요함. 하지만 그것만으로 논란이 해결됐을 거라고 보긴 어려움. 애초에 이 논란은 멤버들이 어떤 의도를 가졌는지가 핵심이 아니었음. 창작자와 가수의 의도와 상관없이 외부 사람들이 어떻게 해석했느냐가 중심이었던 논란이었음. 세상 어디선가 누군가 가장 성적인 해석을 만들어낼 수 있다는 이유만으로 모든 작품을 평가한다면, 예술은 제대로 존재할 수 없음. 한국 사회는 어디까지를 윤리적 기준으로 삼을지 스스로 결정할 권리가 있음. 그 기준은 한국의 언어와 문화, 그리고 한국 사회 안에서 형성돼야지, 영어권 인터넷 담론이 정해주는 기준을 따라갈 이유는 없음. 서구의 인정을 받으려고 노력하는 게 한국 문화를 더 강하게 만든 적은 없음. 오히려 한국이 세계적인 성공을 거둘 수 있었던 건 서구 기준에 맞춰 스스로를 바꾼 게 아니라, 자신들의 문화를 자신 있게 보여줬기 때문임. 그래서 쿠키 논란에서 진짜 던져야 할 질문은 “한국이 서구권의 모든 해석을 만족시킬 수 있는가?“가 아니라, “한국이 자기 문화에 대한 판단을 스스로 믿을 수 있는가?“라고 생각함. Cookie: Who Baked the Cookie? By Lee Ji-won snujn.com/news/articleVi…

@snujournal @juantokki Good point

결국 이 논쟁은 ‘누가 누구를 베꼈는가’로 끝나지 않는다. 케이팝은 검증된 공식을 변주하며 자라났고, 뉴진스 역시 그 이전 세대의 무언가를 딛고 섰다. 문제는 그 차용이 어떤 가치를, 그리고 누구를 희생했는지다. ⇢ snujn.com/news/80122

Reminder: Obama was a terrible president. Democrats pretend otherwise b/c they're compelled by their religion. Anyway if you need a refresher, here are 700+ scandals I catalogued during his administration: lists.grabien.com/list/complete-…

@cliff_cow @luenacore 🐐's ❤️ 🐐's

@luenacore Concerned for their ability to continue working as well. It's a horrible mess. Danielle seems to be coming through this but the other ladies may have to wait another year or more. 😥🥲

@luenacore Thank you for your comments Luna. Yes, I feel so badly for our Girls. It seems like everyone is against them except the bunnies. The media and to some extent even the court system has been bought out by the evil hybe demons. And other artists must quietly support NJZ but are

I appreciate the way you've written about the power imbalance and how much the nation misses NewJeans. With all the court-confirmed media play over the past two years, it has been difficult to hear the public's genuine voice regarding the girls. The way the members are being forced to stay silent is what breaks my heart. I hope more people will start speaking up for these girls and lend a voice to those who, for now, cannot speak freely for themselves.

@457ww 😅

어떤 구독계분이 춘천 또 가실 거면 여기 빵집 맛있어요! 하고 디엠으로 추천해 주셨는데 너무 귀여우셔서 이르케 됨 소녀들은 정말 너무 귀여운 거 같아요

@457ww 😅

너무 귀여우셔서 춘천 같이 가는 트친들한테도 말하고 비계에서도 말하고 여기서도 말함 너무 귀엽다 나는 귀여운 사람이 좋아

@newjeansmoment So pretty. That lady should be singing on stage with 4 others.

I made this last year.

@PoppyKPoppie May God bless those students!

everybody misses newjeans...and seoul national university couldn't help themselves but write 4 articles each featuring a newjeans debut song...yearning goes hard on this...coz is it really summer if we don't have summerjeans? 🔗snujn.com/news/articleVi…

@PoppyKPoppie hybe trying to do everything by force

whenever someone forcibly tells me to support the hybe sisterhood agenda...aaaaand block.

@PoppyKPoppie Hybe employee getting a bonus check for that comment

"hybe rly stole everything from them" there, i fixed your twt.

@PoppyKPoppie 😥😢🥲

we could've had this if hybe wasn't greedy and evil.

@https_mago I miss this talented lady! 💞

Saying haerin does not have stage presence is the biggest joke

@https_mago Whitma is the retard

@cliff_cow @luenacore Goats love goats

@cliff_cow @luenacore Even Missi loves New Jeans! 💙🩷💛💚💜

@luenacore Wacky job

Bang Shi-Hyuk hated NewJeans' Ditto for a reason. His entire brand thrives off of parasocial relationships with fans that harms not only the fans but the artists as well. But as usual, this creature will do anything for money.