On April 3, the first trial hearing for the main lawsuit between girl group NewJeans and their agency ADOR took place in Seoul Central District Court. This suit seeks to determine the validity of the group’s exclusive contract.
Unlike the previous injunction hearing, the members of NewJeans were absent, but their legal team strongly insisted that the trust between the agency and the artists had been broken. They emphasized that the departure of former CEO Min Hee-jin, and the lack of communication regarding her replacement, created an environment too unstable to continue working with ADOR.
ADOR fired back, claiming it was absurd to say the group couldn’t exist without Min Hee-jin. They argued that ADOR, backed by industry leader HYBE, could support NewJeans with new producers and that Min had left voluntarily after declining a producer role that didn’t include CEO status. ADOR added that the group had recently performed successfully in Hong Kong without her involvement, disproving the claim that only Min could lead them.
Even the presiding judge appeared skeptical of NewJeans’ reasoning, pointing out that lawsuits over broken trust usually stem from issues like unpaid earnings — not from leadership changes. He remarked that the group had been supported from their trainee days and expressed uncertainty about how to legally interpret this situation.
Korean Reactions: Sympathy for the Girls, Criticism Toward Adults
Korean netizens expressed mixed emotions, with many feeling sorry for the members while blaming adults — especially Min Hee-jin — for involving them in such a complex conflict.
Top Korean Comments (Source : Nate)
“They were in school when Min Hee-jin raised them. She may be their whole world. At first I was frustrated, now I just feel sorry for them.” (👍 571 / 👎 109)
“I hope they make a wise decision without being manipulated by adults.” (👍 387 / 👎 53)
“HYBE says it can just replace Min, but the group is clearly tied to her image. You can’t pretend she wasn’t essential.” (👍 305 / 👎 184)
“You can’t write in an internal report ‘we’ll just ditch NJ and build a new group’ and expect them not to be hurt.” (👍 91 / 👎 35)
“Min Hee-jin is the real problem. She’s using them like tools, not people.” (👍 51 / 👎 20)
“They’ve been completely gaslit.” (👍 48 / 👎 20)
“They’ve been brainwashed… I hope they see a bigger world.” (👍 48 / 👎 28)
Global Reactions: Brutal, Business-Oriented, and Unforgiving
International netizens were far less sympathetic, calling the members immature and criticizing their dependence on Min Hee-jin.
Top Global Comments (Source : allkpop)
“NewJeans’ arguments hold no weight. ADOR just needs to outline a solid plan and move forward.” (👍 14)
“Their obsession with Min Hee-jin is seriously unhealthy.” (👍 14)
“Both sides are toxic. They deserve each other.” (👍 13)
“Act like professionals. People have livelihoods. You’re not the only ones who struggle at work.” (👍 12)
“This is the second time the judge hinted they have no legal case. They’re dragging this for nothing.” (👍 9)
“It’s a clown show. The judge nearly said this was a nothingburger.” (👍 9)
“Trust issues are valid when you’re unpaid — not when your CEO just changed.” (👍 8)
Cultural Interpretation: Emotion vs. Logic
This controversy reveals a stark contrast in cultural reactions. Korean audiences focus heavily on emotional bonds, loyalty, and the human side of the story — especially between the young idols and the person who nurtured them. Min Hee-jin is seen by many as a mentor or even a maternal figure, and for some, her absence feels like a betrayal of the group’s foundation. The emotional tone reflects a cultural value placed on relationship-based trust over contract-based logic.
On the other hand, global audiences adopt a pragmatic, business-first lens. They emphasize professionalism, contractual obligations, and adaptability in a corporate environment. To many, the members’ deep loyalty to Min appears excessive — even irrational — and a risk to their long-term careers. There’s little patience for internal drama when so many livelihoods depend on stability and output.
As the lawsuit progresses, the question remains:
Is this a battle to preserve authentic creative trust, or an unwillingness to evolve with the industry?