"I tried, but there's no result, isn't there?"…Danielle, a change in independent action

[Dispatch=Park Hye-jin, Lee A-jin reporters] "I acted believing it was a legitimate contract termination" (Danielle) vs "Even the court said it was improper, so does it become legitimate just because you alone believe it?" (Adore)

The 31st Civil Division of Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) held the second hearing on June 11 in the damages lawsuit filed by Adore against Danielle, her mother, and former CEO Min Hee-jin.

Adore presented specific reasons for terminating the exclusive contract only with Danielle among NewJeans members on the day. There were serious breaches of contract. In particular, it pointed out that even immediately after the injunction for the exclusive contract was dismissed, she proceeded with unauthorized collaboration with American band EO and personal photo shoots.

Regarding Min Hee-jin and Danielle's mother, it pointed out circumstances of their involvement in the exclusive contract termination process. Min Hee-jin is known to have said things to the effect of "I will design it so that you don't bear penalty fees or damages liability" and "If you leave HYBE, I will also prepare compensation in lieu of litigation costs."

Danielle's mother took the lead in proceeding with collaboration with EO. She participated in discussions of "let's backdate the contract signature date to before the injunction decision" and "let's have the payment received through Danielle's older sister's business entity and then paid out."

The claim items were also adjusted on the day. Adore reduced the penalty fee claim against Danielle to 19 billion won. Instead, it newly added 10 billion won in lost income damages and 1 billion won in defamation damages. Adding the existing 3.1 billion won in advertising contract termination damages, the total comes to 33.1 billion won.

Lost income refers to the amount of operating profit that Adore would have obtained during that period if NewJeans had not violated the exclusive contract. Lost income was originally claimed only against Min Hee-jin and Danielle's mother. This time, Danielle was included as a joint debtor.

① EO Collaboration

American band Emotional Oranges (EO) announced its collaboration with Danielle in May of last year. It was at a time when the injunction objection application regarding NewJeans' agency status was dismissed, and Adore's exclusive contract status was maintained. Adore viewed Danielle's action as a violation of the exclusive contract. Danielle countered that it was not a violation because there was no final product.

Adore: Danielle attempted to proceed with collaboration with EO even after the injunction decision. We also confirmed that $175,000 (approximately 250 million won in Korean won) had already been invested in production and artist fees. Furthermore, her mother even devised a scheme to backdate the contract signature to before the injunction decision and receive payment through her older sister's business entity. This is evidence showing there was no intention to accept the injunction decision.

Danielle: It was merely "exploring possibilities" without a final product. At the time, the merits lawsuit (regarding contract termination) was ongoing. Danielle believed the contract termination was legitimate. That's why she naturally explored independent activities.

② Independent Activities

Danielle continued independent activities while excluding Adore despite the exclusive contract with Adore being maintained. She conducted advertising and photo shoot activities with Omega, Elle, and others. Adore viewed this as unauthorized independent activity. Danielle countered that it was not a violation because there was no contract or it was unpaid.

Adore: Contracts and activities conducted without permission while excluding Adore constitute a violation of the exclusive contract. In particular, the March 2025 issue 'Elle Singapore' photo shoot shot under Danielle's name is a prime example. Who concluded that contract? Adore was not informed, and no Adore employee accompanied the shoot.

Danielle: It is true that a photo shoot was conducted and published under Danielle's name. However, I don't know who the contractor was. Danielle understands that she received no compensation regarding the photo shoot.

(At this point, the judge remarked, "You shot it but say no one contracted for it. That doesn't make sense. If Adore didn't, then someone who went to the shoot location would have concluded a contract, wouldn't they?" The defense counsel insisted they didn't know.)

③ Entertainment Activities

Adore claimed it demanded Danielle to correct the situation, but only received formal responses. Ultimately, it determined they could not work together and terminated the contract. Danielle's side countered that it was contradictory to say they were given freedom while facing a lawsuit in the hundreds of billions of won.

Adore: There's no reason to prevent Danielle's entertainment activities themselves. However, penalty fees, lost income damages due to activity suspension, and damages for reputation harm are claimed separately.

Danielle: The penalty fee reaches nearly 100 billion won, and the damages amount continues to increase. Saying "engage in activities freely" is irresponsible. No management company would take on and provide activities for an entertainer facing this level of lawsuit.

④ Min Hee-jin

Adore filed a damages lawsuit against former CEO Min Hee-jin. It viewed Min Hee-jin as having induced NewJeans members including Danielle and their parents to break the contract. It presented Telegram messages exchanged with members' parents as evidence. Min Hee-jin's side drew a line, saying it was a decision by the members and their families.

Adore: As an inside director of Adore, she violated her duty of loyalty and duty of care (Commercial Act Article 399). She actively induced and persuaded NewJeans members to break the exclusive contract with the plaintiff. There are circumstances showing she told members' parents, "I will design it so you don't suffer financial disadvantages such as penalty fees and damages," and "If you leave HYBE, I will take responsibility for compensation in lieu of litigation costs."

Min Hee-jin: The termination of the exclusive contract was a voluntary decision by adult members. The YouTube live broadcast was also proposed first by the members, and Min Hee-jin tried to dissuade them. Only after the members decided did she discuss ways to minimize damages. Certified mail, demands for correction, and other matters were also pursued by the members and their families, not Min Hee-jin. In conclusion, Min Hee-jin's actions are "performance of duty of loyalty for the company and NewJeans," not "inducement to break the contract."

⑤ Danielle's Mother

Adore viewed Danielle's mother as an accomplice participating in Min Hee-jin's illegal acts and actively involved in Danielle's independent activities. It also detected circumstances of her continuing to explore independent activities in a group chat with Min Hee-jin, lawyers, and others. Danielle's side argued, "She was merely fulfilling her duties as a mother."

Adore: As an accomplice participating in Min Hee-jin's illegal acts, she played the most active role among the members' parents. She was also deeply involved in Danielle's independent activities.

Danielle: Danielle's mother has no position regarding Danielle's business revenue. She simply supported her as a "mother." The parents' decision regarding NewJeans' termination of the exclusive contract was a decision made with the unity of all parents. It is unfair to hold only Danielle's mother responsible.

Both sides continued their dispute over the method of calculating damages and the pace of trial proceedings on the day. Adore's side stated that lost income was calculated as "the difference between projected revenue if normal activities were conducted for one year and actual revenue."

Danielle's side countered, "Calculation based on complete NewJeans activities is unfair. It should be based on Danielle's individual income. Projected revenue excluding Min Hee-jin's producing is impossible to predict."

They also engaged in a war of nerves over the trial pace. Danielle's side said, "Isn't Adore delaying the submission of evidence presentation plans and requesting fact inquiries from overseas brands an attempt to slow down the trial?"

Adore's side countered, "It is necessary only to confirm the contracting parties, and compared to other trials, it is proceeding at an exceptionally fast pace."

Opinions also conflicted over witness examination. Adore's side plans to request one relative of Danielle as a witness. It would prove through testimony from someone who witnessed how much the parents were influenced by Min Hee-jin.

Danielle's side said, "We cannot accept a witness request with no name disclosed" and questioned whether they could attend and why the name had not been revealed previously. Adore requested the court's understanding, saying "Disclosing the identity is difficult. We will explain through written statement."

The next hearing date is set for July 2.

by. Hyejin Park