NewJeans Unable to Sue Due to Likely Loss, Claims Legal Expert

A legal expert has suggested that the reason NewJeans cannot pursue a lawsuit is that they believe they would likely lose. On December 8, Lee Ji-hoon, a lawyer from the law firm Law & More, shared his insights in a video titled "The Reason NewJeans Can't Sue, Even Zhuge Liang Would Cry" on the popular YouTube channel 'Knowing Lawyer,' which has 390,000 subscribers. The channel is well-regarded for making complex legal concepts accessible and engaging.

The five members of NewJeans held an emergency press conference on November 28 in Gangnam, Seoul, where they announced that their exclusive contract with Ador would be terminated at midnight on the 29th, stating that they would not take any legal action. In response, Lee Ji-hoon remarked, "They are not suing because they think they would lose. If they thought they could win, they would definitely pursue it. The reason they are not taking action is that they believe they would lose 100%. This isn't some groundbreaking strategy or a new frontier; it's simply that they know they would lose."

He further questioned, "NewJeans claimed, 'There are no cases like ours for contract termination.' Why is that? Is it because others are foolish for not doing the same? Did they catch everyone off guard? Are they some kind of Zhuge Liang? No, that's not the case at all. The reason they are not taking legal action is that it is clear they would lose. There are no contract violations that would justify terminating the contract, so they are not pursuing it. If they could win, they would naturally take legal action. Why wouldn't they?"

Lee Ji-hoon explained that if he believed he would lose a lawsuit, he would instead engage in public opinion and psychological warfare. He described modern conflict as involving legal battles, public opinion, and psychological tactics, stating, "If you think you will lose in a legal battle, there is no need to pursue it. The characteristics of modern warfare allow for victory through public opinion and psychological strategies."

He speculated that NewJeans might be engaging in public opinion and psychological warfare rather than pursuing legal action. In another video, he analyzed that if the NewJeans members continue their activities, they would need to change their name, as they cannot use the NewJeans name without permission. He noted that the rights to the name and intellectual property belong to Ador, as stated in their contract.

He emphasized, "They must return the name NewJeans. Consistency is crucial. If they use it, they could face liability for damages. However, it could be interpreted that they intend to reclaim the name through legal action. Whether they can continue their entertainment activities depends on the contract, which must be reviewed to minimize risks."

Lee Ji-hoon also commented on NewJeans' claim that they have no intention of paying penalties, stating, "But they will have to pay. It is difficult to convince the public that they have no intention of paying when they have created a situation where they must. They likely do not want to pay a single penny, but it seems they will have to. This poses a legal risk for NewJeans."

Previously, after NewJeans announced their intention to terminate their exclusive contract with Ador, the company issued a statement on December 5, asserting that they did not wish to resolve issues with their artists through legal means. However, they felt it necessary to clarify that a contract cannot be easily terminated based solely on one party's claims. Consequently, they filed a lawsuit on December 3 at the Seoul Central District Court to confirm the validity of the exclusive contract.

In response, NewJeans stated on December 6, "We have already returned profits exceeding our investment to Ador and HYBE. Despite this, HYBE has attempted to undermine our value through defamation and various forms of obstruction, which Ador has allowed since the management change. There is no longer a reason to work with Ador and HYBE as stipulated in the exclusive contract. Ador has filed a lawsuit to seek a court ruling on the legality of this termination, but this is merely a procedural step for post-facto confirmation. We are deeply disappointed by their statement, which misleads the public into thinking the contract is still valid."