original post
translation by @juantokki
(03.26) The NJZ fandom Bunnies announces its unwavering support for the members and their decision not to continue with HYBE and ADOR.
On March 23, during the Hong Kong Complex concert, Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein announced that they would temporarily halt their activities in compliance with the court’s decision. Team Bunnies fully supports and stands by the members’ choice.
Following the court’s ruling, there has been a spread of misunderstandings and misinformation due to varying levels of comprehension among fans. To prevent further confusion, Team Bunnies has compiled responses to some of the most frequently asked questions. These answers were prepared with legal consultation from multiple attorneys, and sensitive information was carefully filtered to avoid any negative impact on the upcoming trials.
⸻
Q) How long will the appeal process take?
Some fans mistakenly believe that the members’ activities will be suspended until the final ruling in the main lawsuit or that the appeal process will take a long time. However, the objection process (the legal procedure to contest the injunction) and the appeal hearing are still pending. With a request for an expedited hearing, the decision could come sooner.
If the legal process proceeds without delay, the appeal ruling is expected around late May to early June of this year.
⸻
Q) Why wasn’t an immediate appeal filed?
According to legal procedures, an appeal can only be filed after an objection to the injunction ruling has been submitted and resolved. Since the same court reviews the objection, there is a high likelihood that the same conclusion will be reached. Therefore, the goal is to swiftly complete the objection process and immediately proceed with the appeal, which will be handled by a different court.
It is anticipated that some people may misinterpret the outcome of the objection as the final verdict. However, since the objection is reviewed by the same panel of judges, the ruling is likely to remain unchanged. Bunnies are encouraged not to be misled by this.
⸻
Q) What is the essence of this case?
At its core, this case concerns the termination of the exclusive contract, which inherently requires a high level of trust between the parties.
As cited in the court’s decision, the Supreme Court of Korea previously ruled that:
“An exclusive contract, by its nature, requires a high level of trust between the parties to achieve its purpose. The obligations of exclusive activities imposed on the artist cannot be fulfilled by anyone else. If the trust between the parties is broken, forcing the artist to continue exclusive activities against their free will would excessively violate the artist’s personal rights. Therefore, when the trust is irreparably damaged, the artist has the right to terminate the exclusive contract.”
This legal precedent highlights that the essence of this case is the members’ right to terminate their contracts due to the breakdown of trust, rather than merely a contractual dispute.
Q) Lack of Comprehensive Judgment
In its recent ruling, the court acknowledged several key facts, including:
•HYBE’s CEO telling NewJeans they would be given a “1 year and 6 months long vacation.”
•HYBE’s PR team making disparaging remarks to reporters, stating that “NewJeans’ Japanese album isn’t selling well.”
•A conflict arising between NewJeans’ MV production company and ADOR immediately after ADOR’s CEO was replaced.
•The presence of the phrase “discard New and start over” in a HYBE internal report.
•Similarities between HYBE’s plans for other groups and NewJeans’ concepts and photoshoots.
•NewJeans’ trainee photos and videos, which were internal materials from Source Music, being leaked to Dispatch.
However, when evaluating the exclusive contract and trust relationship, the court failed to consider these incidents as a whole, instead assessing each one in isolation. Rather than interpreting the “1 year and 6 months long vacation” offer, the PR team’s disparagement of NewJeans, the conflict with producers after ADOR’s leadership change, and the incriminating HYBE document as collectively indicative of a broken trust relationship, the court viewed each event separately and deemed them insufficient grounds for contract termination on their own.
In the objection and appeal process, the legal team plans to present the full context and sequence of events comprehensively, which could lead to a significantly different outcome.
⸻
Q) ADOR’s Legal Personality and Formalistic Logic
The court accepted ADOR’s injunction request, reasoning that since “ADOR under Min Hee-jin’s leadership” had already taken corrective actions, the company itself was not at fault. The court interpreted Min Hee-jin’s protests as ADOR’s official objections, effectively treating her personal stance as ADOR’s corporate position.
However, this fails to address the core issue, which is Min Hee-jin’s dismissal. The essence of the dispute lies in the difference between ADOR before and after her removal. Given the questionable legitimacy of Min Hee-jin’s dismissal, the court’s ruling appears overly focused on the formal legal identity of ADOR as a company, while overlooking the significant distinction between the former and current leadership.
Additionally, while each incident might seem minor in isolation, when viewed collectively, they reveal a pattern of continuous mistreatment. The court recognized the factual basis of these incidents but failed to consider them as part of HYBE’s systematic efforts to oust Min Hee-jin and restructure ADOR’s management with HYBE personnel.
In the upcoming legal procedures, it will be essential to clearly present this broader context and how the corporate restructuring directly affected NewJeans and their creative direction. The short duration of the injunction hearing made it difficult to thoroughly assess the cumulative impact of these events, which will need to be addressed moving forward.
⸻
Q) Impossibility of Fulfilling the Contract’s Purpose
ADOR’s current management argued that since NewJeans is its only artist, the company’s very existence would be jeopardized without the group. As a result, ADOR filed for an injunction to suspend NewJeans’ activities.
However, if ADOR’s current leadership truly viewed NewJeans as critical to the company’s survival, their timing and manner of dismissing Min Hee-jin—the person who was instrumental in NewJeans’ success and growth—becomes even more inexplicable.
As the court itself acknowledged, “ADOR was founded solely for NewJeans’ activities, and NewJeans is its only artist.” Furthermore, it was Min Hee-jin who founded ADOR and was responsible for NewJeans’ overall production and creative direction.
Nonetheless, the current ADOR management dismissed Min Hee-jin without prior consultation with the members. This sudden leadership change halted all plans for NewJeans’ activities, including their upcoming album, domestic fan meeting, and world tour preparations.
HYBE and ADOR’s abrupt dismissal of Min Hee-jin—during the crucial third year of the group’s career—further raises concerns. They replaced her with a HYBE HR executive with no experience in the entertainment industry, a decision made without consideration for the group’s artistic continuity. However, the court treated these incidents in a fragmented manner, failing to account for their collective impact.
If ADOR’s current leadership had genuinely dismissed Min Hee-jin for pure business reasons, they should have:
1.Acknowledged her close bond with the members.
2.Recognized her as the key figure behind NewJeans’ planning and growth.
3.Considered her dual role in producing and managing the group.
4.Understood that many directors and producers who collaborated with NewJeans did so out of trust in Min Hee-jin, and were unwilling to continue working with ADOR without her.
They should have engaged in prior discussions with the members regarding the timing, manner, and contingency plans for the leadership change to preserve trust.
Instead, the court viewed HYBE’s offer for Min Hee-jin to continue in a production role after her dismissal as proof that she voluntarily chose to step down. However, this overlooks the coercive and disingenuous nature of the offer. Despite her repeated requests to maintain the existing creative structure, HYBE dismissed her concerns and presented her with a production contract containing unfair clauses, raising doubts about the sincerity of the offer.
This will be a key point of contention in the subsequent legal proceedings, where the true nature of the offer and the dismissal process must be thoroughly examined.
Conclusion:
The recent court ruling was merely a provisional injunction determining the temporary legal status—it is not the final decision. However, despite this, some media outlets have already begun publishing critical articles against the members, fueling negative press. Even though this media smear campaign has persisted for days, HYBE and ADOR have taken no action to protect the members. This alone reveals the harsh reality of the current situation.
It is deeply regrettable that key contexts and evidence were either overlooked or insufficiently presented in the initial ruling. However, as explained above, many crucial contextual factors were not reflected in the decision. Given the complexity of the case, it is understandable that the court may have struggled to fully grasp all the nuances during the short period of the injunction hearing.
After consulting with multiple attorneys, Team Bunnies believes that the appeal process could lead to a different outcome. This is because the Supreme Court precedent on exclusive contracts—emphasizing the “high level of trust” required—was not adequately considered in the initial ruling. If the appeal court thoroughly examines the case with this precedent in mind, it will recognize that forcing the members to continue exclusive activities in a broken trust relationship severely violates their personal rights and renders the contract’s purpose unachievable.
⸻
A Message to Certain Fans:
Lastly, Team Bunnies has received multiple reports regarding the behavior of certain fans. We want to make it clear: Team Bunnies does not sympathize with fans who prioritize their own emotions over the members’ personal rights and wishes.
The members endured persistent mistreatment while working under HYBE. For instance, although it may seem trivial to outsiders, the incident where a board chairperson ignored the members’ greeting symbolized the contempt and disregard they faced within the company. Knowing how relentless belittlement can make a person feel utterly dejected, we, as fans, cannot help but share in the members’ pain.
The members have repeatedly expressed that they were not treated as equals within HYBE. They clarified that this legal battle is not a strategic game but rather a necessary fight to protect their human rights.
As fans who love and prioritize the members above all else, Team Bunnies declares that we cannot stand with a company that refuses to treat the members as equal human beings—not even for a second.
Throughout the past year, Bunnies have witnessed how HYBE’s smear campaigns and malicious narratives relentlessly targeted the members. This is why we stand by them even more firmly.
Those who do not share this conviction can no longer be considered Bunnies. Should they choose to act independently, their actions do not represent the collective will of the fandom.
We are concerned that their reckless and selfish behavior may once again make the members targets of media manipulation.
As the NJZ fandom, Team Bunnies will continue to raise a strong and unwavering voice of support for the members.
Team BUNNIES
