[비즈한국] The actions of the members of the girl group NewJeans, who are rejecting even the recommendations for settlement from their agency and the court, are both puzzling and unfortunate. While one can empathize with their feelings, these actions are legally disadvantageous. However, one cannot evaluate their moves solely within the boundaries of the law. They are artists, but they are also youths. This is an issue that the entire K-pop industry, as well as the government, the National Assembly, and the judiciary, must ponder.
First, let’s look at the key issues. The members of NewJeans disobeyed the court's injunction and filed an immediate appeal, which was not accepted. The injunction from the court prohibits them from engaging in independent activities. Last November, the five members of NewJeans (Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, Hyein) declared the termination of their contract, citing ADOR's failure to fulfill its obligations. They delivered a certification of contents demanding corrective measures, but as it was ultimately not accepted, they stated that the relationship of trust had been broken. Although they included a proviso that they would fulfill promised or contracted schedules and advertisement shoots, they proceeded with independent activities under a new group name (NJZ). Of course, they created a new name partly because the trademark for 'NewJeans' is registered to the agency.
The agency, ADOR, naturally did not sit idly by and filed for an injunction and a confirmation of the validity of the exclusive contract with the court. As expected, the court sided with the agency. It ruled that for the time being, ADOR maintains its status as the management agency as long as the exclusive contract remains in effect.
Being "for the time being" means that since the final judgment on the merits has not yet been rendered, ADOR's status as the agency is temporarily recognized under the contract. Therefore, they must not engage in independent activities or activities under a new management entity, either on their own or through third parties other than ADOR, without the prior approval or consent of ADOR. Specifically, they cannot participate in musical activities such as songwriting, composing, performing, or singing, nor can they engage in broadcast appearances, the negotiation or signing of advertising contracts, commercial appearances, or any other profit-oriented commercial activities. To engage in such activities, they must obtain the approval or consent of ADOR, which holds the temporary status of the agency.
What happens if NewJeans proceeds with independent activities without accepting the court's decision? The court granted the agency’s request for indirect enforcement, notifying them that if they violate this, they will be subject to a penalty of 1 billion won per instance. This amount is larger than in any other case.
During the SM Entertainment exclusive contract dispute in 2011, the court ordered the agency to pay 20 million won per instance if it interfered with the entertainment activities of JYJ, former members of TVXQ. While the agency penalty was 20 million won, the court decided that the NewJeans members must pay 1 billion won. Although ADOR originally requested 2 billion won per instance, the court reduced it to 1 billion won, half of the requested amount. Nevertheless, the amount was set exceptionally high because the NewJeans members ignored the injunction and engaged in independent activities. It serves as a stern warning against disregarding court orders. It clarifies that they must comply with the injunction until the first-instance ruling on the exclusive contract lawsuit is reached.
However, it is worth noting the "relationship of trust" mentioned by the court. Regarding the NewJeans members' claim that the "relationship of trust has been broken," the court stated, "Unlike previous cases where idols sought to terminate their contracts because they had never received any settlements and failed to become successful after signing management contracts, this case is unique. Usually, it is evident that settlements were not paid or things did not go well. (In this case) we will consider how to view the relationship of trust."
Usually, settlement issues for idol groups are cited as the cause of conflict with agencies. Fifty Fifty is an example of this. The NewJeans case is not simply an economic conflict over profits. Somewhere along the line, it seems that economic issues have been accepted as the most important, but in reality, the relationship of trust is more important. The zeitgeist today values respect and mutual friendliness. For instance, in the Anglo-American world, where agencies serve as intermediaries, agencies and artists can be on equal footing. If an agency fails to meet the artist's demands, that contract may no longer be considered valid. However, in Korea, the "relationship of trust" is abstract. Because it lacks specificity, it is not seen as grounds for contract termination. Therefore, the final judgment on the merits is unlikely to be favorable to NewJeans.
Looking deeper, the limitations of the material structure of the K-pop system are at play here. Unlike in the Anglo-American world, vast amounts of capital are poured into the discovery, training, promotion, and marketing of new artists. This is why the Korea Entertainment Producer's Association responds strongly to tampering. These groups still believe that the rights of idol group members have become excessively inflated and that the rights of agencies should be strengthened. Even during the conflict between CEO Min Hee-jin and ADOR, it was argued that the CEO must unconditionally follow the agency's orders.
Underlying this is the perception in Korean society that owners should be the ones managing companies. Even if an artist faces unfair treatment, if the agency does not accept it or remains passive, the artist is expected to just follow orders and perform. However, silently enduring a management environment that cannot be trusted does not align with the worldview of Generation Z. While it might be tolerated domestically, it is difficult for developed nations to understand. This is particularly why countries like the UK view the Korean K-pop system negatively. They see artists as being subordinate to their agencies.
This cannot be called true cultural democracy. Furthermore, it contradicts the idealistic socio-cultural values that NewJeans has promoted through their songs. It is far from the K-pop that captures the values of a free and confident life. That is why they are clashing with legal boundaries and refusing to settle. Yet, the agency demanded a 2 billion won indirect penalty, and the court decided on 1 billion won.
The members of NewJeans are youths, and they sparked a global fandom by performing with the hearts and perspectives of youths. While it may be that they are struggling through a tumultuous period, our society needs to listen to the demands of the future generation. Securing cultural brand value is extremely important. This applies not only to K-pop but also to South Korea's national branding. Under the current system, NewJeans' attempts or struggles are highly likely to fail. However, their artist-like actions will help both K-pop and our country take a step forward in the future. I hope there will not be a situation where one wins in court but loses in culture.
※ Columns by external contributors may not reflect the editorial direction of this publication.
The author, Kim Heon-sik, has been walking or navigating through the forest of popular cultural phenomena since his 20s, with the expectation that there is a way to make the world a better place through culture. He continues on the same path with the same belief, even in the 21st century, where artificial intelligence and quantum computers are active.