Fairlane Raymundo
patreon
Lawyer's Perspective On The Injunction
🕑 Added 2024-12-07 07:05:44 +0000 UTCThis was lifted from Aespann Jeans, Tokkis' mortal enemy on X.
Lee Jin-ho: Some people say it was a brilliant move (a “divine move”), what do you think?
Lawyer Kim Kyung-nam: I don’t think so at all. It looks more like the worst possible move.
Lee Jin-ho: There’s an opinion in some quarters that if HYBE sues NewJeans, it will lead to a breakdown of trust. Is that true?
Lawyer Kim Kyung-nam: A lawsuit is the last resort for a citizen to claim their rights. Just because someone is asserting their rights doesn’t mean the trust relationship is necessarily broken.
Lee Jin-ho: In the case of a “declaratory judgment” (확인의소), can there be a breakdown of trust?
Lawyer Kim Kyung-nam: A declaratory judgment essentially confirms that since there is an exclusive contract, they cannot engage in activities elsewhere. If they violate this, the court would decide on a certain amount of compensation per day or per violation.
Lee Jin-ho: What happens if NewJeans ignores this and continues activities elsewhere?
Lawyer Kim Kyung-nam: They would have to pay damages. If NewJeans doesn’t fulfill their activities or performs elsewhere, ADOR (the company) can claim monetary damages based on past net income. There’s also a separate penalty clause (calculated as [previous two years of sales] x [remaining months]).
Lee Jin-ho: What is the probability that NewJeans could win in court?
Lawyer Kim Kyung-nam: About 1% to 2%. (Judges are human, so I can’t say 0%.)
Lee Jin-ho: It seems like this could become an important precedent for future entertainment agencies.
Lawyer Kim Kyung-nam: Rather than having some special significance, it would likely be a case that just reaffirms something that should be obvious.
Comments
Nix
H laughed at her 'performance' at the assembly and at the people there. How might that affect a judge's ruling on things? This was heaven to see, "Lawyer Kim Kyung-nam: Rather than having some special significance, it would likely be a case that just reaffirms something that should be obvious." because truly, this is facts.
shingylee
Im keep trying to figure out how 👖 could think they would win this and all I can come up with is....they don't...they could be trying to use this decision to help their mama...when I think about it we've heard their mama use that same phrase before right "hybe can't unilaterally cancel the shareholder agreement", now we have Ador saying " you can't unilaterally cancel the contract"...could they be misunderstanding that they can use the courts decision, that the contract still stands, as precedence to help their mama get back her position...I'm just trying to wrap my mind around their convoluted ways of thinking because I just can't see how they can think they're going to win this one.
