[Dispatch=Yuha Nal Reporter] "Intentional trial delay, must proceed promptly" (Danielle) vs "Time is needed for new arguments and evidence" (ADOR)

ADOR and former NewJeans member Danielle clashed over the trial's pace, submission of proof plans, and whether to hold separate hearings. As a result, substantive arguments were not made.

Seoul Central District Court Civil Harmonization Division 31 (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) held the first oral argument on the 14th in the afternoon in ADOR's damages lawsuit against Danielle and former CEO Min Hee-jin. Danielle and Min did not attend on this day.

ADOR appointed law firm Rihan as its new legal representative recently. On the 8th, it submitted an application to change the date. However, the court did not accept it and proceeded as scheduled.

Danielle's side stated, "The plaintiff said it would submit a proof plan by last April. However, all existing litigation representatives resigned and new representatives were appointed," and said "It is essentially starting from the beginning again."

It then said, "Malicious intent to delay the trial," and stressed, "Attempts to prolong the trial without regard to procedure should never be accepted. Strong sanctions are necessary for this."

ADOR's side countered that there was no intent to delay the lawsuit. Time is needed due to new arguments. It said it would organize and submit parts of the existing litigation representatives' arguments that need to be revised or supplemented.

It emphasized that the current case differs in timing and issues from Min Hee-jin's existing shareholder agreement dispute. It explained that additional breach of duties and breakdown of trust have occurred after the existing lawsuit.

It also drew a line regarding Danielle's claims of obstruction of entertainment activities. ADOR stated, "The plaintiff has not obstructed Danielle's entertainment activities and has no intention to do so in the future," and said, "We hope Danielle also does not repeat arguments that differ from the facts."

In response, Danielle's side said, "The plaintiff has claimed to have already secured the grounds for contract termination and evidence of breach," and said, "But now dragging out time saying it will find additional evidence does not make sense. At least in the Danielle case, a conclusion must be reached promptly."

The court also considered separate hearings for Danielle and Min Hee-jin. It ordered both sides to submit written opinions on the matter by the 2nd of next month. It also requested similar precedents from overseas entertainment and sports industries regarding tampering.

Regarding the concept of "tampering," it said, "The legal community discusses it as third-party creditor infringement or improper recruitment," but added, "In Korea, related concepts and legal principles have not yet been sufficiently established. There is a need to refer to overseas cases."

ADOR's side revealed future plans for witness examination. However, a specific list of witnesses has not yet been confirmed. The court requested, "Please identify the scope of witnesses as promptly as possible."

The next date is set for the 11th of next month at 2 p.m. in the afternoon.

<Photo=Dispatch DB>