"The Only One in NewJeans.." Why Only Daniel Was Sued by ADOR [Star Issue]

*This content was translated by AI.

's reasons why entertainment company ADOR notified only Daniel (21), a member of its group NewJeans, of termination of his exclusive contract and proceeded with a damages lawsuit were revealed in court.

According to NEWSIS on the 2nd, Seoul Central District Court's Civil Collegiate Panel No. 31 (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) held the third argument session for ADOR's 31 billion won damages lawsuit filed against Daniel, his mother, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin (currently at OkeLee Re-ko-deu (CEO)).

On this day, ADOR's legal representative pointed out in oral arguments that Daniel "unilaterally carried out musician activities as the only NewJeans member," "unilaterally executed commercial activities (magazine publication) as the only NewJeans member," "established a cooperative to replace the entertainment agency and signed dual contracts with Chinese capital," and "despite the most serious violations, made no effort to correct them and instead blamed or concealed the plaintiff (ADOR), hindering the restoration of trust."

In particular, ADOR claimed that Daniel attempted to carry out entertainment activities independently while excluding them. ADOR's legal representative made these remarks on March 25 and 26, immediately after the preliminary injunction decision on March 21 last year, citing conversations between Min Jeon (CEO), NewJeans' mothers, and lawyers as evidence.

ADOR stated, "The conversation includes mentions of a voice recording, and it also appears that Emotional Oranges (EO) had already invested in production and artist costs worth $175,000." They added, "Based on this content, we understand that song recording with Emotional Oranges had already taken place and that something had progressed to the extent that production and artist costs were incurred."

Even if music video filming was halted, singing and other entertainment activities had already been carried out to a significant extent. Two months later in May of the same year, on May 19, Daniel's photo was even uploaded to EO's official account.

ADOR pointed out, "If 'performance' or 'singing' was done without going through the plaintiff, it constitutes a breach of the exclusive contract." They further noted, "The defendant argues that there is no breach if there are no results like music videos, but we wonder if they are hiding the results."

In particular, ADOR emphasized the shock that these activities occurred after March 21, when ADOR won the lawsuit for a preliminary injunction to preserve its status as an agency and prohibit advertising contracts. Despite the court's ruling confirming the validity of NewJeans' exclusive contract with ADOR, Daniel proceeded with independent activities while ignoring his agency.

Daniel's independent entertainment activities included commercial (advertising model) engagements. These included a photoshoot for 'Elle Singapore,' an exclusive two-party contract with the famous watch brand Omega, and a cover model shoot for 'Paris Capital' magazine.

ADOR stated, "All magazines are commercial publications, and it is inevitable to view his modeling activities as based on the status and popularity of a cultural artist." They added, "Although there was no written contract and no payment received, the argument that this does not constitute a violation is invalid. The contract with the plaintiff explicitly prohibits independent entertainment activities unrelated to the exclusive contract. Whether a violation occurred does not depend on the existence of a contract or payment."

It was also revealed that Daniel entered into contracts identical or similar to his exclusive contract. NewJeans established a cooperative for the purpose of running an entertainment planning business. Daniel's side argued, "It was only to pay costs, so there is no problem," but ADOR countered, "The cooperative's bylaws state that profits are distributed among members, and ultimately, cost expenditures were made for profit generation."

In fact, despite the court's decision on March 21 last year granting ADOR's request to confirm its agency status, NewJeans' Hong Kong Complex concert proceeded as scheduled. ADOR stated at that time that staff labor costs were paid as cooperative expenses.

Additionally, venue rental fees for the press conference announcing the termination of NewJeans' exclusive contract, rehearsal room rental fees arranged by Min Jeon (CEO) with the intention of also allowing male idols to use it, 'NJZ' logo costs incurred by NewJeans for their re-debut without ADOR's consent, and photoshoot expenses were all paid as cooperative costs.

ADOR noted, "Even if only cost payments were made, if a cooperative was established for the purpose of entertainment planning business and entertainment activity costs were incurred, it constitutes entering into identical or similar contracts for entertainment activities that violate the exclusive contract."

It is also noteworthy that a dual contract was signed with a Chinese capital parent company. The company is reportedly known to have submitted an ADOR sale proposal to HYBE's board of directors.

In this regard, after NewJeans members returned following the judgment on the validity of their exclusive contracts (main lawsuit) on October 30 last year, they requested ADOR to resolve the dual contracts, and ADOR subsequently initiated contract termination procedures. However, unlike other members, Daniel is said to have remained silent about the fact that such an exclusive contract agreement was concluded until the end.

ADOR raised the issue, stating, "According to the recorded conversation with Daniel's mother in November 2025, despite the most serious violations of the exclusive contract, unlike other members, Daniel consistently ignored the fact of violation and responded with an attitude of not dwelling on past events." They added, "It appears that Daniel had no intention of taking corrective measures or equivalent actions. The situation is such that non-cooperation regarding correction of violations makes it extremely difficult to expect restoration of trust."

However, Daniel's side has countered by claiming, "They have singled out Daniel as if he were the only one who violated the contract."

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

*This content was translated by AI.