The legal battle between ADOR and former NewJeans member Daniel has kicked off with intense disputes over alleged procedural stalling tactics. The lawsuit, seeking approximately 43 billion won in damages, held its opening court session at the Seoul Central District Court, but tensions flared as Daniel’s legal team accused the entertainment label of intentionally dragging out proceedings.
Controversy Over Legal Team Replacement
Just weeks before the scheduled hearing, ADOR made a surprising move by replacing its entire five-member legal team with a new set of attorneys. The switch happened roughly three weeks before the court date, prompting concerns about potential delays. Daniel’s lawyers quickly submitted a formal request urging the court to proceed as planned, anticipating that ADOR might seek a postponement citing the need for their new counsel to prepare.
As predicted, ADOR filed a motion to reschedule after appointing its new legal representatives. However, the court rejected the postponement request, ensuring the first hearing went ahead as originally scheduled.
Accusations of Deliberate Stalling
During the hearing, Daniel’s legal representatives presented sharp criticism of ADOR’s litigation approach. They pointed out that despite filing the lawsuit months earlier, the company had failed to submit a required evidence plan by the deadline it had previously committed to. Daniel’s lawyers characterized this as a clear pattern of intentional delay tactics.
“Four months have passed since this case began, and the plaintiff suddenly replaced its entire legal team,” Daniel’s counsel argued. “This lawsuit targets only Daniel among the NewJeans members, appearing designed as retaliation and a warning to others who might not cooperate with the company’s demands.”
Daniel’s side pressed the court to dismiss the case outright, arguing that ADOR’s failure to present an evidence plan essentially amounts to abandoning its burden of proof. They requested strict sanctions against what they described as improper litigation conduct.
ADOR’s Defense
In response, ADOR’s new legal team acknowledged the missing documentation but denied any intent to slow down the trial. They explained that practical circumstances related to the attorney changeover prevented timely submission, and promised to compile and submit all relevant evidence together after reviewing materials prepared by the previous legal team.
ADOR also firmly rejected suggestions that they were interfering with Daniel’s entertainment activities. Their lawyers called such claims contradictory, noting it would make no sense to file a contract termination lawsuit while simultaneously blocking someone’s career. They emphasized that ongoing litigation does not legally restrict Daniel’s ability to work.
Request for Separate Proceedings
Daniel’s legal team proposed splitting the trial to handle different defendants separately. They argued that since ADOR already presented its reasons and evidence when terminating Daniel’s contract, no extended examination is needed for her case. Therefore, they suggested the court could expedite Daniel’s portion while continuing proceedings against the other defendants—Daniel’s mother and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin—separately.
The judge acknowledged that different liability frameworks apply to each defendant: Daniel faces issues related to her exclusive contract and its termination, while the others are accused of wrongful conduct that allegedly led to that termination. While no immediate decision was made on splitting the trial, the court’s recognition of these distinctions suggests different issues may be addressed separately going forward.
Court Orders Clarification on “Tampering”
A central issue in the lawsuit involves allegations of “tampering”—the practice of making contact with artists before their contracts expire. The judge instructed ADOR to provide clear legal definitions, similar cases, and relevant precedents to establish exactly what actions constitute tampering under civil law.
The court emphasized that proving civil damages requires demonstrating specific actions, resulting harm, and a clear causal connection between the two. Without proper legal foundation and comparable cases, it becomes difficult to assess liability claims related to tampering allegations.
What Happens Next
The court has set the next hearing for mid-June. At that session, proceedings will continue based on witness testimony and additional evidence that ADOR has been ordered to submit. ADOR must also provide its position on the separate trial request and clarify the legal framework surrounding tampering claims.
Only the legal representatives from both sides attended the initial hearing; none of the principals were present in court.