First Hearing in 43 Billion Won Damages Case...ADOR Leaves Door Open for Settlement

The damages lawsuit between ADOR, former NewJeans member Danielle, and former CEO Minhee Jin had its first hearing at the Seoul Central District Court on the 26th. The amount claimed by ADOR for damages amounts to approximately 43 billion won.

During the hearing, the court inquired about the possibility of a settlement between the two parties. ADOR’s side responded by stating, “We don’t rule it out entirely,” leaving open the possibility of narrowing differences through mutual understanding during the litigation process, such as mediation or an agreement. This stance contrasts sharply with HYBE’s historically firm position in similar disputes.

Danielle’s side urged for a swift resolution of the case, arguing, “This is the brightest period of her career as an idol, and prolonged litigation will inevitably cause severe harm.” ADOR’s side countered by saying, “This is a lawsuit for damages and breach of contract penalties, and it does not affect the defendant’s entertainment activities.”

The background of this dispute traces back to a contract issue involving NewJeans. In November 2024, the former five members of NewJeans began independent activities, claiming ADOR had violated their exclusive contracts. However, in October 2024, a court ruled in ADOR’s favor, determining that the exclusive contracts were valid. Since then, some members decided to return to the group, but Danielle’s contract remains terminated.

An interesting aspect is ADOR’s cautious approach. Last month, when former CEO Minhee Jin won the first-instance trial in a lawsuit against HYBE for unpaid stock purchase proceeds and was set to receive 25.5 billion won in put option payments, she proposed dropping all legal disputes in exchange for not receiving that amount. Yet HYBE rejected this offer and demonstrated its intent to continue the litigation by depositing 29.25 billion won as a guarantee.

ADOR’s mention of a possible settlement highlights the strategic differences among its subsidiaries. It remains to be seen how the court’s proposal for mediation will progress in practice.