A third hearing was held in the lawsuit between ADOR, the agency of the group NewJeans, former member Danielle and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin (currently CEO of ooak).
On the 2nd, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 31 (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) held the third hearing in the damages lawsuit ADOR filed against Danielle and her family and former CEO Min Hee-jin.
Earlier, ADOR notified Danielle of the termination of her exclusive contract in December last year and filed a damages lawsuit seeking about 43.1 billion won against Danielle, one member of Danielle's family, and former CEO Min Hee-jin, saying they caused this dispute and bear significant responsibility for NewJeans' departure and the delay in their return.
At the third hearing, ADOR argued that Danielle was the only NewJeans member who independently carried out musician activities without permission, was the only one to unilaterally carry out commercial activities (publishing a magazine), formed an association to replace the agency and entered into a dual contract with Chinese capital, and that despite these being the most serious breaches she made no effort to correct them and instead blamed or concealed matters to obstruct the restoration of trust with the plaintiff (ADOR).
ADOR said Danielle attempted entertainment activities on her own without including them and cited conversations on March 25 and 26, shortly after the March 21 provisional injunction decision, between former CEO Min, the mothers of NewJeans members and lawyers as evidence. ADOR argued that if the defendant performed "instrumental performance" or "singing" without going through the plaintiff it would be a breach of the exclusive contract, and said the defendant claims "if there is no result such as a music video then it is not a contract violation," but it appears they may be hiding results.
ADOR also criticized Danielle's commercial activities (publishing a magazine), saying the magazines are entirely commercial and inevitably involve modeling activities based on the status and popularity of a popular culture artist. They said the argument that there was no violation because no contract was signed or no money was received is incorrect, because the exclusive contract with the plaintiff prohibits entertainment activities unrelated to the plaintiff and whether a breach occurred does not depend on a contract or payment.
On the point that NewJeans set up an association for the purpose of entertainment planning business, Danielle's side rebutted that "it was only to pay expenses, so there is no problem. The association rules also state a profit-distributing association, and ultimately expense payments are only for revenue." ADOR, however, said that despite the March 21 decision upholding ADOR's status as the agency, the Hong Kong ComplexCon performance proceeded and staff wages were paid as association expenses.
With reports that the venue rental fee for the press conference declaring NewJeans' exclusive contract termination, the rehearsal room rent that former CEO Min Hee-jin rented expecting male idols to use as well, the cost for the "NJZ" logo for the re-debut and the costs for photo shoots were also paid as association expenses, ADOR said that even if only expenses were paid, because the association was established for the purpose of entertainment planning business and entertainment activity expenses were paid, it would constitute entering into substantially the same type of contract for entertainment activities that violate the exclusive contract.
ADOR pointed to the fact that a dual contract was signed with a parent company of Chinese capital and said, referring to a 2025 recorded statement by Danielle's mother in November, that although the breach of the exclusive contract is the most serious, Danielle consistently pretended not to know about the breach unlike other members and responded with an attitude of not dwelling on past matters. It appears Danielle had no intention of taking corrective or equivalent measures. ADOR said there was noncooperation in correcting the breach and it was impossible to expect restoration of trust.
Danielle's side said the plaintiff stitched together evidence and, they learned of this content after the lawsuit to confirm the validity of the exclusive contract, they claim only defendant Danielle committed a serious violation, but the plaintiff already knew this during the earlier lawsuit. They argued Danielle was singled out as the target as if only she had violated the contract.
Danielle's side said that although ADOR claims only Danielle committed significant contract violations, in fact NewJeans members share many commonalities. They argued that if ADOR wants to claim a major breach, the Hong Kong ComplexCon appearance was a breach committed by all. They added that they do not know what ADOR had other members change or correct in practice, and asked if Danielle had been told to do something, could she not have done it? They said Danielle was never given the opportunity and had already decided to terminate the contract before sending the notice of termination.
Meanwhile, NewJeans currently has Haerin, Hye-in and Hanni returned, and Min-ji's return is also being positively reviewed.
[OSEN]