ADOR disputes Min Hee Jin’s testimony in ongoing lawsuit over ‘ETA’ director’s cut

ADOR has refuted former CEO Min Hee Jin’s testimony during its damages lawsuit against Dolphiners Films.

On December 9th, the Civil Division 62 of the Seoul Central District Court (presiding judge Lee Hyun Seok) held the fourth hearing for ADOR’s 1.1 billion KRW(approximately 750,000 USD) damages suit against Dolphiners Films .

The case stems from August of last year, when Dolphiners Films—an outsourced video production company for ADOR—uploaded the director’s cut version of NewJeans’ ‘ETA’ music video on their personal YouTube channel.

At the time, ADOR questioned how director Shin Woo Seok had the authority to post NewJeans-related content owned by the company on his own channel. In response, Shin abruptly deleted all NewJeans videos from his other unofficial fandom channel, “Ban Heesu Channel,” prompting fans—who had enjoyed the content—to voice criticism toward ADOR.

Shin later filed a criminal complaint, claiming ADOR defamed him by referring to the upload as an “unauthorized disclosure of the director’s cut.” In turn, ADOR filed a civil suit against Dolphiners Films seeking damages.

During the previous hearing, former ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin appeared as a witness for Dolphiners Films, testifying that she had “made a verbal agreement with Shin Woo Seok” and “intended to utilize Shin’s marketing capabilities.” At the latest hearing, both sides presented roughly 10 minutes of visual presentations.

ADOR’s Rebuttal to Min Hee Jin’s Testimony

ADOR’s legal representative opened their presentation by stating:

“The defendants violated their service contract by uploading the video without prior written consent, and we are demanding a portion of the penalty fee. We are also seeking damages for copyright infringement and reputational harm.”

Regarding the director’s cut issue, ADOR asserted:

• Apple’s headquarters contacted ADOR, demanding the removal of the video or the deletion of Apple branding before reposting.
• ADOR repeatedly requested confirmation of facts from Min Hee Jin, but she did not respond.
• After receiving Apple’s complaint, director Shin deleted the video—and then began posting unilateral statements containing “malicious claims.”
• ADOR asked Shin and Min to provide proof that they had authorization to upload the video and asked Min multiple times whether a verbal agreement existed, but Min never answered.

ADOR further emphasized that the service contract clearly required prior written consent before posting any material. To argue otherwise would require clear and convincing evidence. Yet the defendants and Min Hee Jin insist that such consent could be replaced by a verbal agreement, calling it “industry practice,” while dismissing the contract clauses as “mere formality.”

ADOR Highlights Legal Precedent and Contract Terms

ADOR stated that:

• In previous lawsuits involving NewJeans and exclusive contracts, courts also examined alleged verbal agreements—and determined no such agreement existed or that even if discussions occurred, they could not replace written consent.
• The defendants now claim two layers of verbal agreements—one to post the video and another to revise the contract terms—claims which appeared only after the court questioned them.

They pointed out that:

• None of Min Hee Jin’s prior statements or submitted documents ever referenced any verbal agreement to modify contract terms.
• If such an agreement existed, there would need to be clear evidence equivalent to a written contract revision.
• The defendants provided no such evidence.

ADOR Challenges Min Hee Jin’s Testimony

ADOR argued that Min’s claim that she told Shin to “decide the content and timing freely” was implausible:

• ADOR’s internal regulations required partners to share materials for review before public release.
• Even Apple had to obtain written consent to use a mere two seconds of the music video in an advertisement.
• Yet Min and Shin allegedly did not even check the final version before allowing it to be uploaded.

ADOR stated they doubted the verbal agreement existed at all:

• The video’s content, upload timing, and posting method were not finalized at the time of the alleged agreement.
• If such a deal existed, Apple would not have needed to complain the moment the video went up.
• According to ADOR, Apple’s VP sent feedback the day after the supposed verbal agreement, asking them to develop the video further—indicating the project was far from complete.

They also argued:

• If Min had truly made such an agreement, she would have stated it openly—but instead avoided all confirmation requests.

ADOR Questions Min Hee Jin’s Credibility

ADOR referenced a previous ruling in the NewJeans exclusive contract dispute, where the court noted that Min appeared to have undertaken “preliminary steps to generate negative public sentiment against HYBE and prepare for litigation.”

Using this, ADOR argued that Min is willing to take improper actions when it benefits her.

They added:

• Min’s testimony contradicts documented behavior.
• She once demanded revisions to HYBE’s shareholder agreement to require her own prior written consent—demonstrating she knows the importance of written terms.
• Her claim that ADOR simply used HYBE’s contract template “unchanged” was false, given ADOR frequently modified templates during her tenure.

Thus, ADOR asserted that Min’s testimony, the defendants’ strongest piece of evidence, is inconsistent and unreliable.

Defamation and Damage Claims

On the issue of defamation, ADOR stated:

• Shin’s statements—such as suggesting ADOR was “changing policies” or “erasing NewJeans”—were presented as factual assertions known only to him.
• He implied ADOR was retaliating against Min Hee Jin.
• But this matter concerns a private service contract dispute—not an issue of public interest.

ADOR argued that:

• The false claim of “erasing NewJeans” severely damaged their business credibility.
• It caused the public and NewJeans fans to believe that ADOR was “a company sabotaging its only artist.”
• As a result, ADOR faced overwhelming online criticism, significant reputational harm, and a sharp drop in revenue.
• The situation was so serious that NewJeans requested termination of their exclusive contract.

Although the court later confirmed in the first ruling that ADOR remains the official agency for NewJeans, the company argued that they came close to losing their entire business foundation.

ADOR concluded by urging the court to recognize substantial damages to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.

SEE ALSO: K-netizens react to Min Hee Jin beginning full-scale idol group production under new label OOAK Records