On July 23, the Civil Agreement Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) held the fourth hearing in ADOR’s damages lawsuit against Danielle, a member of her family, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin.
The hearing focused on the court-appointed expert witness requested by the plaintiff. ADOR had asked the expert to estimate the revenue NewJeans could have generated across various business segments if the members had continued performing under their exclusive contracts.
Min Hee-jin’s Team: Revenue Cannot Be Calculated as if Nothing Changed
Addressing the expert, counsel for the defendants argued that ADOR’s past financial success was achieved during the period when Min Hee-jin was leading NewJeans.
“The revenue ADOR generated came during the period when former CEO Min Hee-jin was managing NewJeans. Therefore, is it really reasonable to estimate future revenue based on that period without considering the circumstances? We ask that this be taken into account.”
The defense also argued that other developments would likely have reduced the group’s earning potential:
- The relationship of trust between ADOR and the members had already significantly deteriorated before the contract dispute.
- There was evidence that ADOR was no longer capable of providing the same level of management as before.
- Any decline in management capability should therefore be reflected in the revenue estimate.
- After Min Hee-jin stepped down as producer, no new producer was appointed, making it difficult for NewJeans to generate comparable revenue during that period.
Defense: A K-Pop Group Is Not Comparable to a Manufacturing Business
The defense further argued that estimating NewJeans’ lost earnings cannot be approached the same way as calculating damages for an ordinary business.
They explained that ADOR’s business model relied almost entirely on NewJeans, meaning the group’s revenue was effectively the company’s revenue.
According to the defense:
“This case is about determining how much revenue the girl group NewJeans would have earned had it continued promoting normally. The premise is fundamentally different from a manufacturing business.”
The attorneys argued that a K-pop group’s commercial success depends heavily on its creative direction and management system.
They said NewJeans’ performance was the result of an integrated structure consisting of:
- Min Hee-jin’s creative leadership,
- the directing staff who supported her,
- and ADOR’s marketing and operational support.
The defense argued that by the time of the dispute, those conditions no longer existed:
- Min Hee-jin had already resigned.
- Many of the staff members who worked closely with her had also left ADOR.
- Trust between ADOR and the members had broken down.
- Under those changed circumstances, it is questionable whether NewJeans could have generated the same level of revenue.
The defense concluded that there are serious concerns about whether it is appropriate—or even possible—to estimate NewJeans’ potential earnings without accounting for those changes.
Court-Appointed Expert Responds
The court-appointed expert acknowledged the defense’s argument but noted that Min Hee-jin’s track record itself could also be evaluated objectively.
The expert said:
“You could also say that former CEO Min Hee-jin’s performance wasn’t always successful. There were cases that didn’t go well. If data from other companies can be obtained showing whether her performance continued after leaving, it may be possible to incorporate that information and isolate that factor in the analysis.”
Other Project Min Hee-Jin Worked on
If the court expert wants to determine whether Min Hee-jin’s creative leadership independently adds commercial value, V’s Layover is probably one of the strongest comparison points available because:
- she worked with an artist outside ADOR;
- she served as the project’s creative director;
- the album achieved significant commercial success.
However, it is still not an ideal comparison for at least three reasons:
- V already had enormous global popularity as a member of BTS.
- It’s difficult to separate how much of the album’s success came from V’s existing fanbase versus the creative direction.
- The project was supported by BigHit Music and HYBE.
- The marketing, distribution, manufacturing, and global infrastructure were not Min Hee-jin’s alone.
- She wasn’t running the entire label.
- Unlike at ADOR, she wasn’t responsible for the day-to-day management of the artist or the overall business.
ADOR Argues NewJeans’ Success Should Be Attributed Primarily to the Artists, Not Min Hee-jin
Responding to the defense’s argument that Min Hee-jin’s presence should be factored into the revenue calculation, ADOR’s attorney first confirmed with the expert that the assignment was to estimate the revenue NewJeans would have generated had all five members continued promoting together.
The attorney then argued:
“The people who are popular are not the producers—they are the artists.”
According to ADOR, NewJeans demonstrated sustained commercial success from July 2022 through June 2024, showing that the group itself possessed the ability to continue generating similar results.
The attorney stated:
“Based on NewJeans’ activities between July 2022 and June 2024, they established themselves as one of the biggest entertainment acts over those two years. We believe they had sufficient capability to continue performing at the same level.”
ADOR further argued that even if a significant portion of the group’s success was created through Min Hee-jin’s work, that value had already become embedded within both ADOR as a company and NewJeans as an artist.
The company maintained that, at most, the expert could consider how much changing producers might affect future performance, but should not disregard the group’s established track record because of management changes.
ADOR Rejects Defense’s Claims About Broken Trust
ADOR also rejected the defense’s assertion that the relationship of trust between ADOR and NewJeans had already broken down before the contract dispute.
The attorney argued:
“That issue has already been decided by the courts. It has been conclusively determined that this was not the case, so it should not be considered in this valuation.”
Addressing the defense’s claim that ADOR had not appointed a new producer after Min Hee-jin left, ADOR argued that producers are replaceable within the company’s management system.
According to the attorney:
- The artists still existed.
- The company still had staff and support infrastructure.
- A producer could have been appointed internally or hired externally.
- Therefore, the amount of time required to appoint a new producer should not be treated as a significant factor in estimating revenue.
ADOR: Temporary Disputes Should Not Reduce the Revenue Estimate
The attorney highlighted that disputes between ADOR and Min Hee-jin disrupted planned activities, including scheduled album releases, but argued those events should not reduce the damages calculation.
The company said the damages should be calculated based on the revenue ADOR allegedly lost from the entire group’s halted activities—not just those of an individual member.
ADOR added that determining how much of those damages, if any, Danielle should ultimately be responsible for is a separate question that can be decided later.
The company also argued that the expert should estimate the damages using NewJeans’ growth trajectory between July 2022 and June 2024 as the baseline, rather than factoring in the disruptions caused by the dispute.
According to ADOR:
“Supreme Court precedent says that temporary and abnormal reductions in income caused by exceptional circumstances should not be considered. Instead, the calculation should be based on the normal trend of earnings.”
The company therefore asked the expert to estimate damages based on the group’s historical growth trajectory and maintain revenue levels over a one-year period, without factoring in revenue lost because of the dispute itself.
ADOR: The Defense Is Asking for a Different Analysis
ADOR concluded by arguing that its request to the expert is straightforward.
According to the attorney:
“We are asking the expert to estimate the profits ADOR would have earned if the alleged unlawful conduct—namely, former CEO Min Hee-jin persuading NewJeans to breach their contracts and preventing them from carrying out activities—had never occurred.”
The attorney argued that the defense was effectively asking the expert to evaluate a different hypothetical scenario—one in which Min Hee-jin had already left and another producer had taken over.
ADOR maintained that if the defense wanted that alternative scenario evaluated, it should file a separate expert request or submit separate evidence.
The attorney added that the defense had simultaneously argued there was insufficient data to measure a producer’s contribution while also asking the expert to quantify it, saying that position was inherently contradictory.
The court directed the expert to proceed with the valuation and aim to submit a preliminary expert report by the next hearing on September 10.
If the report cannot be completed by then, the expert must explain what additional materials are needed and why an extension of time is necessary.
The court also scheduled the following hearing for October 22 at 3:30 p.m.
