SOURCE: 뉴진스는 ‘망했’는데, 민희진은 ‘회생’한 이유
NewJeans suffered a 'complete defeat,' but their so-called 'mother' Min Heejin (former CEO of ADOR, current CEO of OOAK Records) achieved a 'complete victory.' Some NewJeans' members were judged to have joined a planned media battle and now face lawsuits seeking hundreds of billions of KRW in penalties. Meanwhile Min Heejin, who was accused of making the plan, successfully recovered and secured 25.5 billion KRW from her 'put option.'
According to the first trial rulings of two separate lawsuits on the 23rd, the different courts for NewJeans' contract termination case (Civil Division 41) and Min Heejin's 'put option' case (Civil Division 31) reached different conclusions on the same issues and evidence, causing confusion.
■ The same ‘independence plan’: 'A planned trick' vs. 'Not a reason to strip hundreds of billions'
The main contradiction is how the two courts interpreted the Kakao Talk evidence containing Min Heejin's 'media battle plan.'
In the NewJeans case, the court focused on Min Heejin's alleged instruction for an executive to ghostwrite statements for the parents. She said, "It would be better if the mothers report it to the Fair Trade Commission," and "I don't actually care about improving punishments... The goal is the public announcement."
That court concluded that this was "Min Heejin's tampering is a pre-meditated planning for her own independence, not to protect NewJeans," and dismissed NewJeans' claims.
However, the court in Min Heejin's case saw it differently.
While acknowledging that Min Heejin's media play may have been improper, the court ruled that it was not a serious crime enough to take away her right to hundreds of billions of KRW. This court stated, "To break a shareholder agreement involving financial interests, such as a put option estimated at up to 100 billion KRW by 2025, there must be a 'serious violation,' not just a loss of trust."
The court viewed Min Heejin's independence plans as just 'private talk' that was never carried out or was based on getting HYBE's approval. Therefore, the court felt it was not a reason to revoke her 'put option.'
■ Subject of ‘betrayal’: 'NewJeans' sudden termination' VS 'HYBE's sudden media play'
The courts also disagreed on who broke the trust first.
The court for NewJeans' case called the group's sudden contract termination as 'an intentional act to worsen the conflict by creating the 'appearance' that the other side (HYBE) did something wrong in order to avoid penalties.' It found that NewJeans sided with Min Heejin's plan and unilaterally destroyed trust.
On the other hand, the court for Min Heejin's case pointed to HYBE as the party who damaged the trust. The court noted, "Min Heejin's complaints remained internal until HYBE made them fully public through an exclusive article on April 22, 2024."
■ Reassessment of allegations: Acknowledging the practices of 'pushing out' album sales
The suspicions raised by Min Heejin about ILLIT copying NewJeans and that HYBE engaged in 'pushing out' album sales also received opposite interpretations.
The court for NewJeans' case treated these as 'excuses made quickly to end the contract,' but the court for Min Heejin's case judged them as a 'fair internal whistleblowing and an exercise of managerial rights.'
The court for Min Heejin's case specifically stated that HYBE's practices of 'pushing out' album sales actually happened.
This court stated, "At the time, HYBE's CEO Park Jiwon appeared to have suggested 'pushing out' NewJeans' album sales to ADOR. Also, the head of HYBE Japan planning team used the term 'pushing volume' on August 4, 2023. There is evidence to suspect this," adding, "Inflating first-week sales to promote chart rankings harms fair distribution and deserves criticism."
Furthermore, the court stated, "Min Heejin's allegations may have helped ADOR by preventing it from happening again and establishing the market order." The court considered her actions as raising issues of public interest, as she called for investigation and countermeasures regarding matters that could disturb the album market order at a major corporation like HYBE."
Regarding ILLIT's plagiarism allegations, the court also cleared her, saying, "It was a management decision to protect her key asset (NewJeans) and it was a fair issue to raise. It did not constitute the spread of false information."
