[Dispatch=Yuha Sky Reporter] ADOR and Danielle's side have clashed again over the scope of damages assessment materials. The court ordered the assessment procedure to be completed promptly.
The 31st Civil Division of Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) held the seventh oral argument in the damages lawsuit filed by ADOR against Danielle, her mother, and former CEO Min Hee-jin on the 12th.
On this day, damages assessment remained a key point of contention following the previous hearing. Danielle's side pointed out that "ADOR is not providing documents related to contracts with advertisers, citing trade secrets."
ADOR's side cited confidentiality obligations with advertisers. "The relevant materials include contracts concluded with overseas companies," they countered, adding that "it is difficult to disclose them arbitrarily without the advertiser's consent."
The court expressed concern that the assessment would be delayed. Citing the year-end schedule of the certified public accountant serving as assessor, the court noted that if requests for additional materials are repeated, the assessment results may not be submitted until March or April next year.
ADOR's side stated, "The assessor is currently verifying based on existing submitted materials," and announced that "additionally necessary materials will be provided during the document confirmation procedure scheduled for next week."
The court decided to issue a document production order regarding advertising contract-related materials. However, considering confidentiality, it suggested a method of disclosing only necessary parts such as contract amounts.
Discussion also followed regarding Danielle's independent activities. The court deemed it necessary to verify income earned by Danielle through individual activities. ADOR's side filed an application for a document production order on related materials.
The court also addressed the standard for calculating damages. "We need to review how to evaluate the difference between projected revenue if NewJeans' existing activity structure had been maintained and revenue after the separation (from ADOR)," the court explained.
The court demanded specific grounds for judgment from both sides. It ordered them to submit industry practices in the domestic entertainment sector or overseas cases.
The eighth oral argument will be held on the 10th of next month. The court is targeting the conclusion of oral arguments in January next year.
<Photo=Dispatch DB>
