The popular K-pop girl group NewJeans has shocked the public recently by announcing the cancellation of their exclusive contract with their agency ADOR and starting a court dispute. Debuting in July 2022, NewJeans quickly gained international fame. They made it onto the Billboard Global 200 chart and became luxury brand ambassadors, with each member representing major fashion houses. However, in November 2024, the group announced their decision to terminate their contract with ADOR and has been engaged in legal conflicts with the agency since then. The dispute began with a conflict between company HYBE and ADOR’s CEO Min Hee-jin over management authority and control over the creative work. In April 2024, Min publicly accused HYBE of interfering unfairly in NewJeans’ creative direction. In response, HYBE claimed that Min had misused company assets and attempted to break away from the company, leading to her dismissal. At first, the issue appeared to be a matter of internal management, but what surprised the public was the response from the members of NewJeans. In a livestream held in September 2024, NewJeans requested ADOR to reinstate Min Hee-jin. However, ADOR did not accept their request. In October, member Hanni appeared at the national assembly audit, claiming that NewJeans had suffered because of unfair treatment from HYBE. In November, the members officially raised complaints against their agency through a formal notice but failed to reach an agreement. On November 29, they declared the termination of their exclusive contract. In response, ADOR filed a lawsuit to confirm the validity of the contract, claiming that the contract cannot be unilaterally terminated. The agency also requested a court injunction to maintain its management rights and prevent the group from signing independent advertisement deals or continuing solo activities. What began as a conflict between executives has now escalated into a legal confrontation between artists and their agency. The main point of this dispute is the ‘exclusive management contract’. This is a legal agreement in which an artist promises to work exclusively with a specific agency for a certain period. The agency is responsible for managing and investing in the artist’s career, while the artist agrees not to switch agencies or pursue independent activities during that time. An exclusive contract is not just a restriction, it is a promise built on mutual trust and strict responsibility. Such contracts are common in the entertainment industry, but their legal weight is significant. As a result, termination is allowed only under limited circumstances. The NewJeans members claimed “loss of trust in the agency” as the reason behind their termination of the contract. They claimed that the situation had gone beyond a business conflict, posing a threat to their identity as artists and to the stability of their careers. In their view, it was not the contract itself but the collapse of the trust that led to the termination. However, the law generally focuses on concrete breaches of contract rather than emotional reasoning. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether the court will accept the members' claims. On the other hand, ADOR maintains that the exclusive contract is still valid and that there were illegal actions. The agency argues that the members’ claims are one-sided and emphasizes that the company has consistently worked to protect and support the artists. ADOR describes the dispute as a misunderstanding caused by confusion and insists that it should be resolved calmly through legal procedures. As the case between NewJeans and ADOR is still ongoing, it may take a long time to finish. However, this dispute is more than just a scandal in the entertainment industry. It raises wide questions about the rights of creators, the role of trust in professional relationships, and the meaning of a contract. Rather than taking sides, we should reflect on what standards and perspectives we use when thinking about contract relationships today.