"Malicious Litigation Delay": Daniel's Side Engages in Sharp Exchange with ADOR.. From the Scope of Damages to the "Min Hee-jin Effect" [Star News On-Site] [Comprehensive Report]

*This content was translated by AI.View Original

ADOR, the agency representing NewJeans, and the former member Daniel's side continued their dispute over the submission of appraisal materials and the scope of damage calculation in a damages lawsuit. Daniel's side argued that the proceedings were being delayed because the plaintiff, ADOR, failed to submit the necessary materials for appraisal on time. In contrast, ADOR's side rebutted that there was no intentional delay.

Additionally, issues arose regarding the impact of former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin (currently CEO of OK Records), NewJeans' revenue generation, and the extent to which damages resulting from the suspension of activities for the entire group would be claimed against Daniel individually.

On the afternoon of the 22nd, Civil Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court held the sixth hearing in a 33 billion won damages lawsuit filed by ADOR against Daniel, his family, and Min Jeon (CEO).

On this day, Daniel's side focused on raising issues regarding the delay in submitting appraisal materials. They claimed that although the deadline for submitting the appraisal report was set for September 10, ADOR left the materials requested on August 4 untouched for about a month, and omissions were discovered in the subsequently submitted additional materials as well.

They further pointed out, "Even though ADOR explained that they had prepared all the materials and could deliver them the next day, the actual submission was delayed, and the materials requested for additional submission on October 13 were also insufficient."

Daniel's side criticized, stating, "ADOR has never met the deadlines set by the court," and raised suspicions that they are stalling for time through actions such as attorney resignation. They voiced strong objections, stating that promises regarding material submissions can no longer be trusted, there is no sufficient explanation for the delays, and trade secret issues have already been resolved.

They then requested the court to "set a deadline for when materials necessary for appraisal will be submitted, and establish a plan not to reflect any materials submitted thereafter in the appraisal," noting that "materials requested to confirm what activities NewJeans was actually planning were not sufficiently submitted."

The court revisited the individual event planning details, expected audience numbers, and revenue losses due to event cancellations that it had previously requested from ADOR's side. It explained, "It is necessary to specifically confirm what events were planned, and if the events had proceeded, what the expected audience numbers and revenues would have been." Furthermore, it emphasized, "To calculate the revenue loss incurred due to event cancellations, materials are needed to support what activities were originally planned and how much revenue could have been obtained through them."

In response, ADOR's side rebutted, "We submitted materials that could be provided quickly in consultation with the appraiser, and we have submitted most of the additional requested materials, including any omissions." However, they added that while there are limitations to providing materials related to trade secrets, appraisal has been conducted on certain parts through the appraiser.

ADOR's side stated, "While it may take time to compile materials from various labels, there is no reason to intentionally delay the appraisal." They revealed that if the appraiser determines additional materials are needed after reviewing the documents, they will supplement them according to the request and proceed with the appraisal process as swiftly as possible.

The two sides also showed differences of opinion regarding Min Jeon (CEO)'s influence and NewJeans' potential for revenue generation. Issues arose over how many advertising contracts were maintained or terminated, and what profits NewJeans generated separately through individual activities and performances.

ADOR's side said, "I think it is impossible to disclose specific plans by clarifying each item one by one. It is true that the advertising contracts fell apart because Daniel and the members did not fulfill them. They were almost broken." They continued, "It is difficult to accept the argument that there is virtually no revenue that members can generate due to Min Jeon (CEO)'s absence. The capabilities of the artist NewJeans and their agency are important, and one overall producer does not determine all revenues."

The scope of the damages claimed against Daniel individually was also mentioned. Daniel's side requested, "Please clarify in writing whether ADOR is claiming the entire amount of damages resulting from the suspension of activities by all NewJeans members against Daniel, or only the damages resulting from Daniel's suspension of activities and breach of exclusive contract."

In response, ADOR's side stated that this matter also falls under appraisal issues and said they would "respond as swiftly as possible." The court demanded a clear stance from ADOR's side regarding the scope of the claim, pointing out that failing to clearly state their position could work against them in the trial.

ADOR's side conveyed, "The specific amount of damages Daniel should bear and the scope of liability can be determined through the appraisal results. It is difficult to determine the specific scope of liability before the appraisal results are released, and we will calculate the damages based on the results and specify the content of the claim."

As the trial progressed, the tension between the two sides over the appraisal process became sharper. As Daniel's side repeatedly raised issues about ADOR's delay in submitting materials, ADOR's side emphasized that the appraiser is conducting the appraisal from an independent position. In response, the court restrained Daniel's side, stating, "While a deadline for material submission can be set, excessively urging the submission of appraisal materials may affect the appraisal."

The two sides found it difficult to narrow their differences regarding the timing and scope of submitting appraisal materials, Min Hee-jin Jeon (CEO)'s contribution, NewJeans' expected revenue, and the scope of Daniel's individual liability for damages. As the appraisal results are expected to influence future damage calculations and the determination of the claim scope, related disputes are projected to continue for some time.

Meanwhile, the next hearing will be held on November 12.

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.View Original