ADOR and Former NewJeans Members Clash Over Revenue Projections in Ongoing Damages Trial

A key hearing in ADOR’s civil lawsuit against former NewJeans member Danielle, her family, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin centered on a question that could significantly affect the size of any potential damages: How much revenue would NewJeans have generated if the group’s exclusive contracts had continued as planned?

During the latest court session, both sides presented sharply different views on how those projected earnings should be calculated. The disagreement reflects broader arguments over whether NewJeans’ commercial success was primarily driven by Min Hee-jin’s creative leadership or by the members themselves operating within ADOR’s management system.

Fourth Hearing Focuses on Estimated Revenue

On July 23, the Civil Agreement Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court held the fourth hearing in ADOR’s damages lawsuit against Danielle, her family, and former ADOR chief executive Min Hee-jin.

The session included testimony from a court-appointed expert requested by ADOR. Much of the discussion focused on the methodology for estimating the revenue NewJeans could have earned across various business activities had the exclusive contracts remained in effect.

Rather than debating the underlying allegations alone, both parties concentrated on the assumptions that should be used to calculate hypothetical future earnings—an issue that could play a major role in determining any damages if liability is ultimately established.

Defense Says Min Hee-jin’s Departure Changed Everything

Lawyers representing the defendants argued that ADOR’s historical financial performance cannot simply be used as the benchmark for future revenue because those results were achieved under Min Hee-jin’s creative direction.

According to the defense, the commercial performance of a K-pop girl group depends on close collaboration between artists and the production, creative, and management teams supporting them, making it fundamentally different from a conventional manufacturing business.

The defense further argued that after Min Hee-jin resigned, several staff members who had worked closely with her also left the company. Combined with a period during which no replacement producer had been appointed, they claimed those circumstances would have made it unrealistic to expect NewJeans to maintain its previous level of business activity.

The defendants also maintained that trust between ADOR and NewJeans had already broken down before the contracts were terminated. They argued that the agency’s alleged decline in management capability should therefore be reflected in any estimate of projected revenue presented to the court.

ADOR Argues the Members Were the Primary Growth Engine

ADOR rejected that interpretation, arguing that NewJeans’ commercial appeal was rooted primarily in the members themselves rather than any individual producer.

The agency told the court that, based on the group’s trajectory before the dispute, all five members possessed the ability to continue performing and generating revenue at a comparable level.

ADOR further argued that even if Min Hee-jin made substantial contributions to the group’s earlier success, those capabilities had already become embedded within both the company’s operational system and the NewJeans brand. As a result, the agency contended that her departure should not reduce projected earnings.

Addressing the defense’s claim that the absence of a producer would have disrupted operations, ADOR argued that an established entertainment company could rely on internal personnel or outside collaborators to continue production. In the agency’s view, any temporary gap before appointing a new producer should not materially affect the revenue calculation.

Dispute Extends Beyond Revenue Formula

ADOR also challenged the defense’s assertion that the relationship of trust between the company and the artists had already collapsed.

According to the agency, previous court decisions had already rejected that argument, meaning it should not be considered in the expert’s revenue analysis.

The agency emphasized that the central issue in the lawsuit is its claim that Min Hee-jin improperly encouraged the members to suspend their activities, depriving ADOR of profits it says it would otherwise have earned.

Citing South Korean Supreme Court precedent, ADOR argued that projected damages should be based on normal business conditions rather than extraordinary circumstances created by the dispute itself. The company said that disruptions such as canceled album releases or temporary income declines caused by the conflict should be excluded when estimating expected revenue over a one-year period.

ADOR also criticized the defense for arguing that Min Hee-jin’s absence would have significantly affected revenue without presenting objective evidence quantifying her contribution. The agency maintained that if the defense wanted a separate valuation based specifically on her role, it should seek an independent expert assessment.

Why This Matters

The hearing illustrates that the lawsuit is no longer focused solely on questions of contractual responsibility. It has also become a battle over how courts should measure the economic value of a successful K-pop group when a dispute interrupts its activities.

The outcome could influence not only the amount of damages sought in this case but also how future entertainment industry disputes approach the issue of projected earnings. The court will ultimately need to determine which assumptions most accurately reflect what would likely have happened had the contracts continued without interruption.

At this stage, the hearing addressed competing legal arguments over valuation methodology. The court has not yet ruled on whose approach will be adopted.

What’s Next

The damages lawsuit remains ongoing, with the court expected to continue reviewing expert testimony and evidence related to projected revenue calculations.

No final judgment has been issued, and it remains unclear when the Seoul Central District Court will deliver its ruling. Until then, both ADOR and the defendants are expected to continue presenting evidence supporting their respective positions on liability and the proper method for calculating any potential financial losses.