[Dispatch=Yuha Sky Reporter] "Emotional data and NewJeans activity plans must be disclosed" (Danielle) vs "Difficult to disclose for security reasons" (HYBE)

The 31st Civil Agreement Division of Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) held the fifth hearing on September 10 in a damages lawsuit filed by HYBE against Danielle, her mother, and former CEO Min Hee-jin.

Both sides clashed over the scope of disclosure related to expert evaluation procedures. The core issue is how to calculate the anticipated revenue NewJeans could have earned if they had conducted normal activities. The future activity potential of NewJeans and HYBE's return plan emerged as new points of contention.

First, the parties argued over how to review expert evaluation materials. Danielle's side requested, "HYBE must also confirm the materials it provides to the expert appraiser. Accurate verification is necessary."

HYBE's side emphasized that the materials contain trade secrets. There are concerns that if detailed materials are disclosed to the opposing party, which is in a competitive relationship, important information could be exposed.

Danielle's side countered, "If materials are not submitted to the court, it is difficult to properly exercise the right to rebut. If there are concerns about trade secret leakage, it is possible to provide an oath not to use them for purposes outside the litigation."

The court determined that it is necessary to examine the nature of the materials and whether they constitute trade secrets before determining the scope of verification. It also suggested a method of confirmation through a certified public accountant. The court instructed both sides to cooperate promptly so that the expert evaluation process is not delayed.

NewJeans' activity plans also came under scrutiny. Danielle's side argued, "If HYBE is to claim damages, it must be examined whether HYBE actually had the ability to conduct NewJeans activities if the exclusive contract had been maintained."

In particular, they pointed out that even after the members expressed their intention to return, no specific activity plans were disclosed. They applied for a document production order, stating that it is necessary to confirm future activity plans.

HYBE's side countered, "NewJeans' future activity plans are matters to be disclosed through standard promotional procedures and are not materials to be provided in advance to litigation opponents."

HYBE emphasized that the return schedule has been delayed due to Danielle's activity hiatus. HYBE's side responded that they are not preparing for the members' return without any plans.

The court determined that if actual activity preparations are being conducted, related costs such as personnel allocation could be reflected in accounting data. It decided to first confirm this through existing materials and then review whether to require submission of additional materials.

The scope of damages compensation was also made more specific. The court ordered, "Distinguish between advertising contracts maintained and terminated after the declaration of exclusive contract termination for NewJeans, and clarify whether the declaration of independent activities constitutes 'refusal of performance' under the contract."

It also stated, "It is necessary to clarify whether the damages HYBE seeks from Danielle are damages arising from NewJeans' entire departure from the exclusive contract or damages resulting from Danielle's individual actions."

The next hearing is scheduled for the 22nd of next month.

<Photo=Dispatch DB>