[ad_1]
Following getting reports on the results of Min Hee Jin’s injunction lawsuit and subsequent details in reports, now the whole court ruling on the injunction has been revealed. 
——
HYBE/ADOR Dispute
——
A NewJeans stan translated all of it, which you can read if you like*.
*If a HYBE stan does one, I’ll be glad to include it for the sake of fairness, though I’ve browsed through it and there doesn’t appear to be anything egregious.
In summary, it mostly just confirms what has been reported so far, though reading through it all does give the impression that this was essentially a rejection of HYBE’s allegations. Hence, the reason they also have to bear the litigation costs.
——
International netizens have been skeptical of the court’s decision and the interpretation of it by Korean lawyers when we only had pieces of the ruling. I was open to the potential that perhaps I was being misled by unreliable lawyers, so I mostly refrained from posting their analysis. However, now that the whole ruling is out, it seems like the consensus opinions from a couple days ago have been validated.
This verdict overwhelmingly rules against HYBE. To be honest, that is why Min Hee Jin stated that none of HYBE’s claims were accepted in court. She said that none of HYBE’s reasons to fire her were accepted in the courts, and she is basically right. In fact, the court rarely writes a verdict this unfavorable. For example, the language in the verdict is very explicit and clear, which usually isn’t the case. I think HYBE may have been shocked by this.
Not sure where the issue goes from here, though. Still a long path ahead, but this seems to throw a wrench into any appeal plan of the ruling barring any new evidence. We shall see.
======
Note: I’ve seen the articles talking about the court validating the allegation that HYBE gave a Louis Vuitton deal meant for NewJeans to LE SSERAFIM. However, while that was alleged by Min Hee Jin a while back, the ruling appears to mostly focus on the trade secrets aspect, and I’m not sure if any of what’s claimed is an admission that it happened. I’ll wait for a lawyer interpretation, honestly, as I’m not trusting random netizens for that and in my view it’s not remarked on by the court.
[ad_2]
Source link
