ADOR and former NewJeans member Danielle clashed in court on Thursday over whether the agency is deliberately dragging out a high-stakes damages lawsuit.

During the hearing, which took place at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho District, southern Seoul, Danielle’s legal team said that it hopes that the case will proceed “swiftly and intensively.”


Her lawyer argued that “if litigation drags on, idols suffer irreparable damage,” and “they end up wasting the most important period of their careers.” They added that “as an entertainment agency, ADOR is well aware of this and has an incentive to delay proceedings.”

The defense also pointed out that ADOR filed the lawsuit against Danielle’s family member, who is not a party to her exclusive contract, and that the company requested two months to prepare for the pretrial hearing.

Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin’s legal team also echoed the call for a speedy trial, saying that ADOR was “making excuses” and that proceedings should move forward quickly.

ADOR, however, pushed back and stated that it does not consider the scheduling delayed, noting that the hearing was set three months after the complaint was filed. It also requested that the case proceed “as a normal trial.”

The agency further argued that linking the case to Danielle’s entertainment activities is inappropriate, as “this is a lawsuit seeking damages and penalties for breach of contract, and it does not determine Danielle’s career.”

The court asked both sides to review and organize overseas precedents related to “tampering” — referring to a term in the entertainment industry that refers to contacting or attempting to recruit an artist before their exclusive contract expires — and suggested keeping the possibility of mediation open.

ADOR announced in December of last year that it had terminated Danielle’s exclusive contract, citing her alleged responsibility for NewJeans’s departure and delayed return, and filed a damages lawsuit worth 43 billion won ($28.58 million).

The case is being handled by the same panel that last month ruled in favor of Min in a separate dispute with HYBE over a put option. At the time, the court acknowledged that Min had explored ways to make ADOR independent from HYBE, but that did not constitute a material breach of the shareholder agreement.


This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY KIM EUN-BIN [shin.minhee@joongang.co.kr]