Hanni's Return, Yet Danielle Receives ‘Notice of Termination’
ADOR Demands Family Responsibility, Legal Experts Say "Highly Likely to Be Ab*se of Rights"
“Why terminate when they're returning?” Legality of ADOR's termination right exercise questioned
Legal circles predict ADOR's move may struggle to secure legal justification. An exclusive contract is a quasi-mandate contract based on a high degree of trust. According to a Seoul Central District Court ruling, termination is possible only when there is conduct that fundamentally damages the trust relationship.
The issue is that Danielle has already expressed her intention to return to the agency. This can be interpreted as a willingness to restore broken trust and maintain the contract. Nevertheless, ADOR's termination notice citing the abstract reason that “it is difficult to continue together” is highly likely to be subject to legal dispute, as it likely did not involve clear grounds for breach of contract or follow proper corrective action procedures.
Indeed, the Seoul High Court has ruled that an agency must provide an artist with at least 14 days' notice to demand corrective action before terminating a contract. If ADOR ignored this procedure and unilaterally notified termination, the validity of that notification itself cannot be ruled out.
Different standards for the same issue: The trap of ‘ab*se of termination rights’
Another point of contention is that ADOR opened the door for Hanni and Minji to return while selectively expelling only Danielle. Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act stipulates that “rights shall not be ab*sed.” Given that all NewJeans members initially claimed contract termination before reversing their decision to return, treating only a specific member differently could be perceived as an abu*se of rights without reasonable justification.
Notably, ADOR cited ‘Danielle's family's responsibility’ as grounds for termination. However, case law indicates that terminating an artist's contract based on interference by third parties like family members, rather than the artist's own significant breach of contract, carries a high risk of infringing on personal rights.
The Seoul Central District Court held that determining whether trust has been irretrievably broken requires comprehensive consideration of the circumstances between the parties. Whether dismissing an artist who expressed intent to return based on family actions aligns with ‘social order’ is expected to be fiercely contested in court.
ADOR Targets Danielle's Family: Can They Prove ‘Tortious Conduct’?
ADOR's anticipated pursuit of legal liability against Danielle's family is also expected to be a challenging process. To establish tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act, concrete evidence is required proving that family members actively instigated or aided Danielle's breach of contract.
ADOR must directly prove that the family members went beyond merely offering parental advice or expressing opinions, and instead exercised unlawful influence with the specific intent of breaching his contract with the agency.
If proven successful, claims for liquidated damages or compensation for damages could be discussed, as in the case of the Seoul Central District Court. However, holding the family accountable while Danielle herself expressed a desire to return is likely to face a high barrier in proving causation.
“NewJeans is a five-member group” Contract violation risks if forced to proceed as a four-member unit
It is also questionable whether a ‘four-member NewJeans’ excluding Danielle is legally sustainable. Exclusive contracts typically stipulate the obligation to perform as a member of a specific group. The Seoul Central District Court acknowledged the individuality of each member within group activities while implying that the group itself is the core of the contract.
If NewJeans' exclusive contract explicitly states they are a ‘five-member group,’ ADOR arbitrarily excluding one member and forcing activities could constitute a breach of contract against the remaining members.
Should the remaining four members refuse to consent to activities as a four-member group or demand activities as the full five-member group, ADOR could face a counterclaim for breach of its obligation to provide management services. Ultimately, this situation shows signs of escalating beyond an issue concerning Danielle personally into a major legal dispute directly tied to the very existence of the group NewJeans.
Summary:
Legal circles observe that securing legal justification for ADOR's recent action will likely prove difficult.
Despite Danielle expressing her intention to return to the agency, ADOR notified her of contract termination, sparking controversy over the legality of the grounds and procedures for termination.
Taking action to exclude only specific members under identical circumstances carries the potential for abuse of termination rights.
The portion citing family responsibility as grounds for termination carries a heavy burden of proof regarding third-party intervention.
ADOR must prove concrete evidence that the family actively intervened or aided with the intent to breach the contract. This requires demonstrating unlawful influence beyond mere parental advice or opinion sharing.
If NewJeans' exclusive contract explicitly states ‘5-member group,’ ADOR's arbitrary exclusion of one member for activities could constitute a breach of contract.
If the remaining members refuse to agree to a 4-member system or demand full 5-member activities, ADOR could instead face liability for violating its management obligations.
original post: here
1. NewJeans, fighting!!! 🩵🩷💛💚💜
2. I don't understand people calling them NewFIFTY, this is just power trip
3. There's a reason for everything, we just need to wait for the final verdict
4. Seriously, if you're really a fan, you should start fundraising now
5. HYBE's shinyeos are here
6. The fans are f*cking interfering
7. Seriously, people here just want to shut their eyes and earsㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ Use this time to start a fundraising instead
8. But this was according to the law already?ㅋㅋㅋ
9. Ah.. their fans are so weird
10. Do you guys think that Kim & Chang (law firm) are a joke? They won 11 vs 0 but you guys are still insisting like this
![[enter-talk] WHY ARE YOU BASHING JANG WONYOUNG?? JENNIE IS WAY WORSE](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjwwFpCIVtEUwjBGTGKGVy5cbc6iGmdC27phhmJ55vLE2FPKqX3vh9sJlU_RXcm0HukxzCyghGhP1Y2SUpXc1AFJFYRxRC42W31HCC1aNA75KfQCJ5qKrCb0ZV0hpfFXaqSm0KrA9EF6IypVlGTb02oL5nA-ZeoFwhzxQNRkOuK1JYBCAlkyaNrZIlpidQ9=w72-h72-p-k-no-nu)
![[theqoo] IF YOU ERASE ALL THE MAKEUP ON THE DRAG QUEEN WHO DANCED WITH LE SSERAFIM, HE LOOKS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgMOqQou4EkWxWyHRm-HdEcedGjA6dxFy9cjiRgdRyQzl2-H8qxq4dgksKqgjq1CrwUpWaG3-MDyz6cRTEprYyhhyg4kJyfpId877d_TH4tk0vAJzT9ZzULj3dObL06-PuHyKTR4zrxTfl4IlfrsvMBomW5aqBiDca8ZgFuphfXK-4QIJ--FclUQAWmrhSm=w72-h72-p-k-no-nu)
![[theqoo] STRAY KIDS HYUNJIN'S SCHOOL VIOLENCE EXPOSE (FT. ALL 4 VICTIMS WERE FEMALE)](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj3fWOdqtDDXvO31PxvEL_CGiELXwN0yIZ8LYJjbuSvcwT0gemg5P9sN_xSMhkbDnEBHfZSVVk7i7iZCXQBFth8IPDivj0IF4ATzjmzVMBxA7fviFTeFIyYRCHs6jL2G-Vd7NQ9vvXylB20XbMc_cli9jcd2chZXj06m2Ps8B_IiUQFZYtWFekH235c3t20=w72-h72-p-k-no-nu)
![[PC stories/KPOP takes] KPOP FANS REALLY SHIELD IDOLS TOO MUCH](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUjfY9O1sHdfD6FGquVkaZHbtVpfbciNoSuFJmlopD-JNFMCVmuJRq85ImLK-XfvLTOOVkzpQAYKnECiLBqsk931FqFIb4IbXteZBtLR8B9CpA9zLRr6rgDHq7-Ll9sK2q9swyMi4jfxCPGw-mDrcu_O1IhW0U-beZZvhGx1odcJJEHs0GHE5hdx3S1BMs/w72-h72-p-k-no-nu/KpopDemonHunters-Netflix.jpg)
![[theqoo] ADOR "DANIELLE'S FAMILY, CAUSED NEWJEANS DISPUTE... BEARS SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MEMBER DEPARTURE + RETURN DELAY"](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi0pwiz9FfeCVGaJSa-3O44SRpjh5kMFMXG2JMRHlPY47zQfhUWEhFYzUO7es9jdVy6jTIaErxGQH1EqpPAj56nXtT7NvwrjVdl-7-b7To1_7FJt34DzDAmBXZXXjwyOUVx-O9dg8of4S791uJkes76dWu5CWY8UTqjT-e62GC2IRWC1A1EFqcabSoGB3j7=w72-h72-p-k-no-nu)
0 Comments