Min Hee Jin’s Role at Core of ADOR’s $24M Damages Lawsuit
The heated legal battle surrounding ADOR and former CEO Min Hee Jin has once again brought into focus the contentious issue of Min Hee Jin’s precise role in NewJeans’ success. During the latest hearing in ADOR’s significant USD 24 million (approximately KRW 33 billion) damages lawsuit against former NewJeans member Danielle and Min Hee Jin, arguments over how to calculate potential damages took center stage. On July 23, the Seoul Central District Court hosted the fourth hearing in this ongoing civil lawsuit. Both legal teams presented starkly different methodologies for estimating the financial impact, highlighting deep divisions on how NewJeans’ commercial value should be assessed in light of a change in production leadership.
ADOR’s Stance: NewJeans’ Value Is Company & Group Embedded
ADOR’s legal representatives put forth the argument that lost profits should be calculated based on NewJeans’ impressive growth trajectory from their July 2022 debut up to June 2024. They proposed using the period from November 2024 to November 2025 as the specific basis for determining damages. Crucially, ADOR maintained that NewJeans’ intellectual property and inherent commercial value have become firmly embedded within both the company structure and the group itself. This perspective suggests that a change in producer, while a factor, should not significantly alter the fundamental calculation of their established market value.
Min Hee Jin & Danielle Counter: Accounting for Producer Transition
Conversely, the legal team representing Danielle and Min Hee Jin strongly contested this approach. They argued that sales generated during Min Hee Jin’s tenure as producer should not be automatically applied as a benchmark after her departure. Their core contention is that any comprehensive damages assessment must accurately account for the substantial time and financial investment required to recruit a replacement producer and meticulously establish an entirely new production system. Furthermore, they emphasized the inevitable business disruption and potential instability that such a significant transition would inherently cause.
Industry Concerns: Impact on NewJeans’ Brand Value
This particular line of argument has not been confined solely to the courtroom. It has also sparked considerable discussion among industry observers and fans alike. Some have voiced concerns, suggesting that by emphasizing Min Hee Jin’s absence as a pivotal factor directly impacting NewJeans’ commercial performance, the argument could inadvertently undermine the group’s perceived independence and inherent brand value. This perception might arise even if the sole intention behind such a legal strategy is to reduce the potential damages payable.
NewJeans Resumes Activities Amidst Legal Battle
Meanwhile, NewJeans has recently begun resuming official activities, a welcome development for their dedicated fanbase. To commemorate the group’s fourth debut anniversary, members Minji, Hanni, Haerin, and Hyein delighted fans by releasing a series of official content. This signaled their highly anticipated return following an extended hiatus, injecting a renewed sense of energy into their promotions. Looking ahead in the legal proceedings, the court has set a deadline of September 10 to receive the first expert appraisal report. Following this, both sides will be granted the opportunity to submit additional opinions and counter-arguments. The next pivotal hearing in this complex legal saga is currently scheduled for October 22.
Broader Legal Context: ADOR’s Contract Wins
This current damages lawsuit is, in fact, a crucial component of the much broader and multifaceted legal dispute unfolding between ADOR and the former NewJeans members. ADOR had previously initiated legal action seeking confirmation of the validity of the group’s exclusive contracts. Concurrently, they also filed for an injunction aimed at preventing the members from pursuing independent activities before a final court ruling could be delivered. In a significant win for the agency, the court ultimately ruled in ADOR’s favor in both the injunction proceedings and the initial first-instance decision, setting a precedent for the ongoing legal battles.
