USD 24 million damages case by ADOR against Danielle centers on Min He Jin
ADOR‘s USD 24 million (approximately KRW 33 billion) damages lawsuit against former NewJeans member Danielle and Min Hee Jin put Min Hee Jin’s role back at the center of debate at the fourth hearing.
The Seoul Central District Court held the fourth hearing on July 23, where both sides argued over how damages should be calculated.
ADOR asked the court to estimate lost profits based on NewJeans’ growth from their July 2022 debut through June 2024, and to use the period from November 2024 to November 2025 as the basis for calculating damages. The agency said NewJeans’ intellectual property and commercial value had already become embedded within both the company and the group, and therefore a change in producer should not materially affect the calculation.
Danielle’s legal team and representatives for Min Hee Jin countered that sales produced while Min Hee Jin served as producer should not be used as the benchmark after her departure. They argued any damages assessment must factor in the time and cost to recruit a new producer and set up a new production system, as well as the business disruption that transition would cause.
Outside the courtroom, some observers said that highlighting Min Hee Jin’s absence as a main reason for any drop in commercial performance could weaken perceptions of NewJeans’ independence and brand value, even if the point is raised solely to reduce potential damages.
NewJeans has also started to resume official activities. To mark the group’s fourth debut anniversary, members Minji, Hanni, Haerin and Hyein released a series of official content, signaling their return after an extended hiatus.
The court said it will receive the first expert appraisal report by Sept. 10, after which both sides may submit additional opinions. The next hearing is scheduled for Oct. 22.
The damages suit is part of a wider legal dispute between ADOR and the former NewJeans members. ADOR previously filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity of the group’s exclusive contracts and requested an injunction to prevent the members from pursuing independent activities before a final ruling. The court ruled in ADOR’s favor in both the injunction proceedings and the first-instance decision.