The Clause Everyone Overlooked
There’s been a lot of scrutiny regarding NewJeans contract dispute with ADOR. The source of this conflict is buried in the fine print. Specifically, Article 15: a clause the group invoked to terminate their exclusive contract with ADOR.
It’s a bold move, but a shaky one. Under Korean entertainment law, Article 15 doesn’t work the way NewJeans is trying to use it.
What Article 15 of NewJeans’ Contract Says
What we know about NewJeans’ contract is that it’s valid for seven years until it expires on July 31, 2029. The contract is exclusive, meaning ADOR has full control over the group’s recordings, name, the right to promote as artists, appearances and endorsements. A judge ruled earlier this year that promoting as independent artists will leave the girls liable for ₩1 billion KRW (about $760,000 USD) per unauthorized activity.
What doesn’t get discussed enough is Article 15 (Cancellation or termination of contract).
“If the ‘promoter’ or ‘singer’ violates the terms of this contract, the other party first sets a grace period of 14 days for the violator and demands that the violation be corrected. If the violation is not corrected within the period, the other party may cancel or terminate the contract and claim compensation for damages.”
Why NewJeans’ Application Fails
In November 2024, NewJeans sent ADOR a formal notice invoking Article 15. They claimed the label had breached its obligations to protect. Specifically by failing to protect the members after HYBE removed Min Hee-jin as ADOR’s CEO.
Here’s the problem: Min’s removal doesn’t qualify as a material breach.
Korean law defines a breach as “material” only if it makes the contract impossible to perform or causes demonstrable harm.
ADOR removing Min Hee-Jin as CEO doesn’t count as a major breach because it only impacts her relationship with NewJeans. It didn’t prevent the label from promoting, managing, or paying NewJeans. In fact, HYBE, acting through ADOR’s board, offered Min the chance to continue as the group’s creative director. She declined because she wouldn’t be reinstated as CEO.
NewJeans has failed to prove her ouster has caused significant harm because they stopped promoting before ADOR could find a new creative director.
Clauses like Article 15 are supposed to prevent impulsive or retaliatory breakups. It’s not a tool that empowers artists to walk out the door whenever they’re unhappy.
Should Any Idol Have This Contract?
If NewJeans wins this case, it would throw Korea’s entertainment industry into chaos. Clauses similar to Article 15 would become a weapon, not a safeguard.
Any idol could legally terminate their contract for minor infractions like not getting along with their group members. Or disagreeing with the group’s concept. Not liking the food that’s served at the company’s cafeteria. The dumbest of situations could be framed as an agency’s “failure to protect” their artists. Contracts would become swords that idols could dangle over their agency’s head.
This case will shape how entertainment contracts are written for years to come. If the courts reaffirm that only material breaches justify termination, agencies will tighten their contracts even further. Closing every loophole that could give artists early exit power. Unfortunately, this would make it difficult for artists who are being mistreated by their agencies to leave before fulfilling their contracts.
Why Does NewJeans Have a Weird Clause in their Contract?
This whole mess stems from the kind of contract Min Hee-jin wrote for NewJeans. Their agreement may be built on Korea’s standard 7-year template, but Min added unusual clauses that blurred the line between artistry and control.
Unlike most deals, NewJeans’ contract gave them more creative input and autonomy. It also gave them more ambiguity. It’s a “non-standard” contract. One that doesn’t fit into Korean entertainment law.
Why would Min do that? The only excuse she can give is that she wanted to protect NewJeans from the problems she witnessed at SM Entertainment, where she once worked. After seeing multiple SM idols filed lawsuits over their contracts, she could say she didn’t want to repeat Lee Soo-Man’s mistakes.
Most likely, this is something she planned in case her position at ADOR was threatened. Either way, she created a situation that’s hurting NewJeans.
HYBE’s Role in the Dispute
Let me be clear: HYBE created this mess in the first place.
Founder and Chairman Bang Si-Hyuk decided that ADOR and Min Hee-Jin didn’t have to play by the same rules as the other sub-labels. He was so desperate to outdo SM’s aespa that he gave Min Hee-jin (and by extension, NewJeans) a level of autonomy no one else had. He wanted lightning in a bottle so handed Min the match.
ADOR’s independence was supposed to be creative, not contractual. By letting Min draft contracts outside industry norms, HYBE effectively created a ticking time bomb. Now that it’s exploded, the blame sits squarely at the top.
The way NewJeans is applying Article 15 is dangerous. ADOR losing Min Hee-jin as CEO isn’t a material breach, and the courts have already affirmed that.
This dispute exposes something bigger than a falling-out between an agency and its group. It exposes the industry’s failure to maintain consistent standards and HYBE’s failure to enforce them.
