A high-stakes lawsuit involving former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin and Danielle, a former member of the popular K-pop girl group NewJeans, for damages amounting to ₩43 billion (approximately $31.5 million USD) is officially commencing.
On May 14, the 31st Civil Agreement Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Nam In-soo, will hold the initial hearing for ADOR’s ₩43.1 billion (approximately $31.6 million USD) lawsuit for damages against Danielle, a member of her family, and former CEO Min Hee-jin.
This legal dispute stems from events in November 2024, when all five NewJeans members initially claimed their exclusive contracts with ADOR were terminated due to alleged breaches, leading them to unilaterally announce contract cancellations and pursue independent activities. However, NewJeans subsequently lost the first trial of their exclusive contract validity confirmation lawsuit against ADOR in October of the previous year. Following this, the members expressed intentions to return to ADOR without filing an appeal.
Despite this, in December of the same year, ADOR informed Danielle that she could no longer continue as a NewJeans member, terminating her exclusive contract. Concurrently, ADOR filed a damage claim seeking ₩43.1 billion against Danielle, a family member, and Min Hee-jin. While Haerin, Hyein, and Hanni have since confirmed their return to ADOR, Minji is reportedly still in discussions regarding specific terms for her rejoining the agency.
In April, former CEO Min Hee-jin held a press conference, offering to cease all ongoing legal disputes. Her proposal was contingent on her forfeiting the put option payment she was set to receive following her victory in the first trial. However, HYBE signaled its intention to proceed with the litigation by depositing ₩29.25 billion (approximately $21.4 million USD) to prevent the provisional enforcement of the court’s judgment.
During the initial preparatory hearing, Danielle’s legal team asserted that ADOR was intentionally prolonging the lawsuit. They stated, “It appears the plaintiff is clearly revealing its intention to draw this case out. We desire a swift and focused deliberation.” Reports indicate that ADOR had indeed requested a two-month postponement of the preparatory hearing in a recently submitted statement.
Danielle’s representatives strongly argued the severe impact of a prolonged legal battle on her career. “From Danielle’s perspective, she is an idol. If this lawsuit is protracted, she stands to suffer significant and irreparable harm. She would lose the most brilliant period of her career as an idol,” her legal team stated. They further criticized ADOR, saying, “The plaintiff, as an entertainment agency, is well aware of these facts, so there is no reason for them to delay the lawsuit. Furthermore, this lawsuit was filed not only against Danielle but also against defendants not directly involved, such as her mother.”
ADOR’s legal team countered by asserting, “This case is a claim for damages and contractual penalties. The defendant’s entertainment activities are not dependent on this lawsuit; she is free to pursue her career. Her activities are not being delayed by these proceedings.” However, Danielle’s representatives sharply retorted, “ADOR notified Danielle of the termination of her exclusive contract *after* she expressed her intention to return to NewJeans. If Danielle were to resume activities, ADOR would undoubtedly raise objections and disputes. That seems far too obvious.”
ADOR’s legal team also indicated they are considering calling witnesses. Stating “there are many contentious issues,” ADOR’s side explained, “There are numerous alleged breaches, so we are in the process of identifying relevant witnesses. Since the opposing party denies all of these points, we need to discuss whether witnesses are necessary and whether to submit an application accordingly.”
The court itself broached the topic of a potential settlement. ADOR’s representatives responded, “We don’t consider it entirely impossible.” However, Danielle’s team expressed surprise and confusion, stating, “The plaintiff filed a massive lawsuit for breach of contract, and this is the first time we’ve heard the word ‘settlement.'”
ADOR’s team then clarified, “When we said ‘we can’t say it’s entirely impossible,’ we meant that as a lawsuit progresses and arguments are exchanged, it’s crucial to have opportunities for mediation or settlement discussions. In Danielle’s specific situation, her potential return is not dependent on the outcome of this lawsuit. Therefore, the issues concerning Danielle herself seem to need to be discussed independently from this particular litigation. That’s the context in which we made our statement.”
In rebuttal, Danielle’s side explained, “The defendant expressed her intention to return to ADOR following the exclusive contract termination incident. However, the plaintiff, unlike with other members, unilaterally stated its intention to terminate the contract specifically with Danielle, which led to the progression of this current case.”
Ultimately, the court reiterated its inquiry about the possibility of a settlement or adjustment. Danielle’s team concluded by stating, “We will review the matter and inform you if we have any proposals. We believe the plaintiff needs to provide a clear and precise opinion on this.”
