Danielle has issued a statement regarding the contract termination notice and the large-scale damages lawsuit filed against her.
On the morning of March 26th KST, the Civil Agreement Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In Soo) held the first preparatory hearing for the damages lawsuit filed by ADOR against Danielle and former CEO Min Hee Jin.
Danielle’s legal representatives stated regarding the case, “Given the nature of the idol industry, if the lawsuit is prolonged, damage is inevitable. Even though the plaintiff, as an agency, is fully aware that a key period of activities could be consumed, the case appears to be progressing in a way that causes delays.” They added, “The fact that the scope of defendants extends beyond Danielle herself to include her family and former CEO Min Hee Jin can be interpreted as an intention to prolong the case.”
Regarding ADOR’s request to postpone the preparatory hearing, they also argued that it reflects an intention to drag out the lawsuit, stating, “We hope the case reaches a swift conclusion through focused proceedings.”
In response, ADOR stated, “You are linking Danielle’s activities to this case, but this is a lawsuit concerning damages and penalties. The defendant herself can decide to continue her entertainment activities.”
Danielle’s side also addressed ADOR leaving open the possibility of a settlement, saying, “We have never heard of mentioning the possibility of a settlement in a situation where the exclusive contract has been terminated and a large penalty lawsuit has been filed.”
In December of last year, ADOR notified Danielle of the termination of her exclusive contract and filed a damages claim against her, one of her family members, and former CEO Min Hee Jin. The claimed amount is approximately 43.09 billion KRW. Through an official statement, ADOR asserted that one of Danielle’s family members played a significant role in causing the dispute and bears major responsibility for NewJeans’ departure and the delay in their return, and that legal accountability would be pursued.
No articles to show.
