Seoul court upholds ruling: ad firm to pay NewJeans' Adore 1 billion won over music video
In short
The Seoul High Court on 29 October upheld a first-instance ruling that ad production company Dolgoraeyugwandan (돌고래유괴단) must pay NewJeans' agency Adore 1 billion won (10억원). The court found that posting a director's cut of the "ETA" music video without prior consent breached the contract, even if Min Hee-jin had given verbal consent.
Read the full story 2 min read
The Seoul High Court's Civil Division 5-3 ruled on 29 October on the appeal in the damages suit that Adore, the agency of girl group NewJeans, brought against ad production company Dolgoraeyugwandan (돌고래유괴단) and its head, director Shin Woo-seok (신우석). As in the first instance, the court ordered Dolgoraeyugwandan to pay Adore 1 billion won (10억원). Yonhap, Asia Economy and Chosun Ilbo described the outcome as a partial win for Adore. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 ]
The court said that even if Dolgoraeyugwandan had received verbal consent from Min Hee-jin, then Adore's chief executive, adding footage on its own and posting the video without removing the Apple logo breached its contractual obligations to Adore. Maeil Business and Kukmin Ilbo said the court held that the duty of written consent had to be met even if verbal consent had been given. Kyunghyang Shinmun quoted the court as saying it judged "mostly the same as the first instance". [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 7 ]
The dispute began in August 2024, when Dolgoraeyugwandan posted a director's cut of NewJeans' "ETA" music video without Adore's prior written consent. Hankook Ilbo said Adore asked Shin's side to take the video down, and Shin then deleted NewJeans-related videos from an unofficial fan channel he ran. Hankook Ilbo and Kyunghyang Shinmun said Adore replied that it had only asked for the director's cut to be taken down and called Shin's claim false. [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 ]
Yonhap and Asia Economy said Adore filed the lawsuit in September 2024. Kyunghyang Shinmun, Hankook Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo said Adore sought 1.1 billion won in damages. Hankook Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo said Shin had filed a complaint that Adore's statement calling the posting "unauthorized" defamed him. [ 1 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 ]
Min Hee-jin testified at the first-instance hearing that it is usually allowed in the industry for a music video director to post footage on personal social media. Yonhap said neither the first- nor the second-instance court accepted that argument. Kyunghyang Shinmun said the first-instance court ruled in January that Dolgoraeyugwandan must pay Adore 1 billion won but rejected the claim against Shin personally. Maeil Business said that claim was for 100 million won and that the first-instance ruling carried 12 percent annual interest from 14 December 2024. [ 1 , 2 , 5 ]
Kukmin Ilbo reported that the amount was the same in both instances but the grounds differed. In the first instance, the penalty owed was 4.0596 billion won, twice the service fee, and the court ordered payment of 1 billion won of it. On appeal, the court found the penalty clause valid within 1 billion won, about a quarter of the earlier figure. The same outlet reported that Adore's copyright infringement, defamation and insult claims were again not upheld. Chosun Ilbo noted that attention now turns to whether the two sides' conflict can end. [ 7 , 8 ]
Why it matters
The court held that verbal consent from Adore's former chief executive did not change the contractual duty of prior written consent. Chosun Ilbo said attention now turns to whether the conflict between the two sides can end.
Key facts
- The Seoul High Court's Civil Division 5-3 ruled on 29 October in Adore's damages suit against Dolgoraeyugwandan and its head, director Shin Woo-seok (신우석). [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 ]
- The court ordered Dolgoraeyugwandan to pay Adore 1 billion won (10억원), as in the first instance, which Yonhap described as a partial win for Adore. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 ]
- The court said that even if Dolgoraeyugwandan had received verbal consent from Min Hee-jin, then Adore's chief executive, adding footage on its own and posting the video without removing Apple elements still breached its contractual obligations to Adore. [ 1 , 5 , 6 , 8 ]
- The dispute began in August 2024, when Dolgoraeyugwandan posted a director's cut of NewJeans' "ETA" music video without Adore's prior written consent. [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 7 ]
- In the first instance, in January, the court ordered the same payment and rejected Adore's claim against Shin personally. [ 2 , 5 ]
Confirmed by several sources
- The Seoul High Court's Civil Division 5-3 upheld the first-instance outcome on 29 October and ordered Dolgoraeyugwandan to pay Adore 1 billion won. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 ]
- The court held that posting the "ETA" director's cut without prior consent, with added footage and without removing Apple-related elements, breached the contract, even if verbal consent had been given by Min Hee-jin. [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]
- Min Hee-jin, Adore's former chief executive, testified in the first instance that it is usually allowed in the industry for a music video director to post footage on personal social media, and the courts did not accept this argument. [ 1 , 5 , 8 ]
- The first-instance court rejected Adore's claim against director Shin personally. [ 2 , 5 ]
Still unclear
- Who sat as presiding judge. Documents 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 name Kang Seong-hun, while Document 7 names Heo Yong-gu.
- Which appeals were dismissed. Document 2 says Dolgoraeyugwandan's appeal was dismissed; Documents 5 and 7 say the appeals of both sides were dismissed; Documents 1, 6 and 8 describe a partial win for Adore.
- Where the director's cut was posted. Documents 1 and 6 say Dolgoraeyugwandan's own YouTube channel; Document 5 says the channel "Banhuisu" (반희수), described as an unofficial NewJeans fan channel run by Shin.
- Whether the Apple logo was removed from the video. The court, per Documents 1 and 8, said the Apple logo was not removed; Document 5 says the logo was deleted but an iPhone appeared.
- That the court rejected Adore's copyright infringement, defamation and insult claims, and that the legal basis for the 1 billion won differed between instances. Only Document 7 reports this.