Danielle defends independent activities in court, says she believed NewJeans contract termination was lawful

“I believed the contract termination was justified and acted accordingly” (Danielle) vs. “Even the court says it was improper. Does believing it alone make it justified?” (ADOR)

The feud continues as the Civil Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In Soo) held the second hearing on June 11 in ADOR’s damages lawsuit against Danielle, her mother, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin.

At the hearing, ADOR laid out specific reasons why it claims Danielle, among the NewJeans members, breached her exclusive contract. ADOR alleged serious violations, including an unauthorized collaboration with the U.S. band Emotional Oranges (EO) and independent photoshoots that continued even after a court injunction preserved ADOR’s contractual status.

ADOR also argued that Min Hee Jin and Danielle’s mother were involved in the process leading to the attempted contract termination. According to ADOR, Min allegedly made statements to the effect of “I’ll structure things so you won’t be liable for penalties or damages” and “If you leave HYBE, I’ll prepare compensation equivalent to litigation costs.”

ADOR further claimed Danielle’s mother played a leading role in pushing forward the EO collaboration, including discussions about backdating contract signatures to before the injunction decision and routing payments through Danielle’s sister’s business.

ADOR also revised its damages claims. It reduced the contractual penalty claim against Danielle to 19 billion KRW (about 13.8 million KRW) but added 10 billion KRW (6.6 million USD) for lost-income damages and 1 billion KRW (approx. 659,000 USD) for reputational damages. Together with an existing 3.1 billion KRW (approx. 2.0 million USD) claim tied to canceled advertising contracts, the total claim now amounts to 33.1 billion KRW (about 24 million USD).

ADOR says the lost-income claim represents the profits it would have earned during the period had NewJeans not breached the exclusive contract. The claim was initially directed only at Min Hee Jin and Danielle’s mother, but ADOR has now added Danielle as a joint obligor.

1. EO collaboration

In May of last year, Emotional Oranges announced a collaboration with Danielle. This came after the court rejected an objection to the injunction that preserved ADOR’s management rights over NewJeans, meaning ADOR’s contractual position remained in force. ADOR argued this constituted a breach of contract, while Danielle argued there was no completed result and therefore no breach.

ADOR stated, "After the injunction decision, Danielle still attempted to push ahead with the EO collaboration. We confirmed that 175,000 USD had already been spent on production and artist costs. Her mother even discussed backdating the contract signing date to before the injunction ruling and receiving payment through Danielle’s sister’s business. This shows they had no intention of accepting the injunction decision."

However, Danielle's side argued, "It was merely exploring a possibility, with no completed product. The main lawsuit over the contract termination was still ongoing at the time. Danielle believed the termination was justified, so naturally she looked for ways to pursue independent activities."

2. Independent activities

ADOR says Danielle continued activities without the company while the exclusive contract remained in effect, including advertising and editorial work with brands such as Omega and Elle. ADOR characterized these as unauthorized independent activities. Danielle responded that either no contract existed or the work was unpaid.

ADOR explained, "Contracts and activities conducted without ADOR’s involvement are breaches of the exclusive contract. A representative example is the March 2025 issue of Elle Singapore featuring Danielle. Who signed that contract? ADOR was neither informed nor accompanied by company staff at the shoot."

Danielle rebutted, "It is true that the photoshoot and publication were done under Danielle’s name, but we do not know who the contracting party was. As far as we know, Danielle received no payment for the shoot."

The judge challenged the response, asking, "How can a shoot take place with no one signing a contract? If ADOR did not sign it, someone who attended the shoot must have." Defense counsel maintained that they did not know.

3. Entertainment activities

ADOR argued that it repeatedly demanded corrections but received only formal responses, ultimately concluding that the relationship had become unworkable and terminating the contract. Danielle’s side countered that it was contradictory to file lawsuits worth tens of billions of won while claiming she was free to work.

ADOR explained, "There is no reason to block Danielle from entertainment activities. However, contractual penalties, lost profits from halted activities, and reputational damages are separate claims."

Danielle's side argued, "The contractual penalty approaches 100 billion KRW (about 72 million USD), and the damages claim keeps increasing. Saying ‘go work freely’ is irresponsible. No management company would willingly take on an artist facing litigation of this scale."

Min Hee Jin stated, "The decision to terminate the contracts was made voluntarily by the adult members. The YouTube livestream was proposed by the members first, and I discouraged it. Only after they had decided did we discuss ways to minimize damage. The certified letters and demands for corrective action were pursued by the members and families, not by me. My actions were the fulfillment of duties to the company and NewJeans, not encouragement to breach contracts."

5. Danielle’s mother

ADOR argued that Danielle’s mother acted as an aider to Min Hee Jin’s alleged misconduct and was deeply involved in Danielle’s independent activities. ADOR said group-chat records showed her participating in discussions about pursuing independent activities. Danielle’s side responded that she was simply acting as a supportive parent.

ADOR claimed, "Among the parents, she played one of the most active roles in assisting Min Hee Jin’s alleged misconduct and was heavily involved in Danielle’s independent activities."

However, Danielle's side argued, "Her mother has no position regarding Danielle’s business income. She simply supported her daughter as a mother. The parents’ decisions regarding NewJeans’ contract termination were made collectively. Holding only Danielle’s mother responsible is unfair."

Further disputes over damages and trial pace

The two sides also clashed over how damages should be calculated and how quickly the trial should proceed. ADOR said its lost-income calculation was based on “the difference between expected earnings if NewJeans had operated normally for one year and actual earnings.”

Danielle’s side argued that calculations assuming full-group NewJeans activities were unfair and that damages should instead be based on Danielle’s individual income. They also said projected earnings without Min Hee Jin’s producing involvement were impossible to estimate.

The parties sparred over the pace of the proceedings as well. Danielle’s side accused ADOR of delaying the trial by postponing its evidence plan and seeking fact-finding from overseas brands. ADOR replied that it simply needed to identify the contracting parties and that, compared with similar cases, the case was moving unusually quickly.

They also disagreed over witness testimony. ADOR plans to call one of Danielle’s relatives as a witness to testify about the extent of Min Hee Jin’s influence on the parents. Danielle’s side objected to a witness request without a disclosed name and questioned why the identity had not been revealed earlier. ADOR said it was difficult to disclose the witness’s identity publicly and would explain further in writing.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 2.