The controversy surrounding the New Jeans-Ailit personnel appointments. Is the suspicion of CCTV deletion true? We've quickly summarized the most important points, from the court's acknowledgement of the facts, to New Jeans' reversal of claims, the verdict on the plagiarism and mockery controversy, and the full return to Adore.

 

1. What was the controversy surrounding the New Jeans and Ailit personnel?

A scene where an Eyelet member bows 90 degrees to a New Jeans member

 

The 'Hani-Ailit personnel controversy', which was the most talked about issue earlier this year, spread into two claims.

 

1) The claim that the Eyelet manager instructed Honey to “ignore”

2) Suspicion that the CCTV footage in question was deleted

 

Parents of the New Jeans members claimed, “Only the problematic scene that Hani mentioned was deleted.”

The incident grew even bigger when former CEO Min Hee-jin also said, “There is another scene behind it.”
However, the data and judgments that were released later were closer to a different conclusion.

 

 

2. Why was the CCTV still there? Fact Check

At the beginning of the controversy, there were many doubts such as, “Why were only the greeting scenes left?”, but the reason was simple.

 

▪️ The default storage period for Hive CCTV is 30 days.

▪️ The date raised by New Jeans is unclear

▪️ Hive keeps only the parts that have been raised as issues in case of disputes.

▪️ The remaining general CCTVs are automatically deleted after the retention period.

 

That is, it was confirmed in court that it was not an intentional deletion but a normal system operation.

Also, the video only showed the members of Illit bowing 90 degrees to Hani.

3. Additional confusion caused by date confusion

The National Assembly inspection said it was the 28th, but the KakaoTalk message submitted as evidence said it was the 27th.

 

Honey said “28 days” at the inspection,
If you look at the actual diary/travel schedule, Neither group could be in Seoul on the 28th.

 

▪️ New Jeans: Gwangju on the 27th → Busan on the 28th

▪️ Eyelet: Moving to the provinces on the 28th

 

In other words, the encounter itself on the 28th was physically impossible.
Therefore, Min Hee-jin's claim that "there is another video" was difficult to establish.

 

 

4. Why were all other claims rejected?

Separate from the personnel controversy, Newzine and Min Hee-jin raised more than 10 additional issues.
The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence and the facts did not match.

 

We have compiled the claims made by Newzin and the representative cases in which Eyelet suffered damage.

 

1) They also claimed that individual photos of members taken in front of the Eiffel Tower were 'copy evidence'.
→ Court: “Anyone can take a photo, so it cannot be monopolized.”

 

2) A member of Illit mocked Hani (controversy over the greeting above)
→ No basis

 

3) Knowing Brothers' appearance date is discrimination against New Jeans
→ PD directly explains, no causal relationship

 

4) Photo taken with Seraphim and Aylit Anti revealed

 

5) Live controversy after the National Assembly inspection

 

In the end, most of the arguments made by New Jeans are

Based on misunderstandings, assumptions, and trends that differ from the facts It was clear that this was the case.

 

 

5. The reason why all New Jeans members eventually returned

The court did not accept most of New Jeans' claims, including those of personnel, plagiarism, discrimination, and mockery.
According to the structure of ADOR and HYBE's exclusive contract
It was a natural conclusion that the New Jeans members would be restored to their original form.

 

As former CEO Min Hee-jin claimed,
This is because ‘video concealment’, ‘discrimination’, ‘copying’, and ‘unfair treatment’ are all not legally accepted.

 

 

 

FAQ

Q1. Is it true that Ailit didn't say hello?
→ No. CCTV footage shows Ailit bowing 90 degrees first.

 

Q2. Is it true that Hive erased the CCTV footage?
→ CCTV is automatically deleted after the retention period expires.

Only the footage obtained immediately after the issue was raised remained.

 

Q3. Was there any “other video” that former CEO Min Hee-jin mentioned?

→ There was no evidence to prove its existence, and the court did not recognize it.

 

Q4. What happened to the controversy over copying the Eiffel Tower photo?

→ It is not accepted as evidence of copying because it is judged to be a “photo that anyone can take.”

 

Q5. Why did New Jeans eventually return to Adore?
→ Legal judgment and contract structure remain as they are,
It was decided that all members would return after expressing their intention to comply with their contracts.

 

 

 

Real-time popular posts

A complete recap of the New Jeans situation! Timeline for full return, Adore Hive relationships, and Minji's Antarctic situation.

Min Hee-jin's ooak office building construction halted? Recent updates, Min Hee-jin and Bang Si-hyuk controversy recap.

Yoajung Half-Price Store Sale! Discount Menu, Period, Delivery, and Dubai Chocolate Shell Combo Review