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

*This content was translated by AI.

It was revealed in court why entertainment agency ADOR notified only Daniel (21), a member of its group NewJeans, of termination of his exclusive contract and proceeded with a damages lawsuit against him.

According to NEWSIS on the 2nd, Seoul Central District Court's Civil Collegiate Panel No. 31 (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo) held the third trial 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 that 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 at corrective measures and instead blamed or concealed information from the plaintiff (ADOR), hindering 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 records mention audio recordings, and EMO (Emotional Orange) indicated that production and artist costs totaling $175,000 had already been invested." They added, "Based on this, we understand that recording with Emotional Orange had already taken place and that something had progressed to the extent of incurring production and artist costs."

Even if music video filming was halted, singing and other entertainment activities had already been substantially carried out. In fact, about two months later on May 19 of the same year, photos featuring Daniel were even uploaded to EO's official account.

ADOR remarked, "If 'performance' or 'singing' was conducted 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 such results."

In particular, ADOR emphasized the shock that these activities occurred after March 21, when ADOR won a preliminary injunction lawsuit 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 disregarding his agency.

Daniel's independent entertainment activities included commercial endeavors such as advertising modeling. These included photoshoots for 'Elle Singapore,' a sole bilateral contract with the renowned watch brand Omega, and cover model shoots for 'Paris Capital' magazine.

ADOR stated, "All magazines are commercial publications, and it is inevitable to view his modeling activities as based on his status and popularity as a popular culture artist." They added, "Although there was no written contract or 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, and whether it constitutes a violation 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 engaging in entertainment planning business. While Daniel's side argued, "It was only to pay costs, so there is no problem," ADOR countered, "The cooperative's bylaws explicitly state profit distribution to the cooperative, and ultimately, cost expenditures were solely for generating profits."

In fact, despite the court's decision on March 21 last year granting ADOR's request for a preliminary injunction confirming its agency status, NewJeans' Hong Kong Complex concert proceeded as scheduled. ADOR clarified that staff labor costs at the time were covered by cooperative expenses.

Additionally, venue rental fees for the press conference announcing NewJeans' exclusive contract termination, rehearsal room rental fees arranged by Min Jeon (CEO) to be shared with male idols, and costs for the 'NJZ' logo and photoshoots used by NewJeans for their re-debut without ADOR's consent were all recorded as cooperative expenses.

ADOR pointed out, "Even if only cost payments were made, establishing a cooperative for entertainment planning purposes and incurring entertainment activity costs constitutes entering into identical or similar contracts for activities that violate the exclusive contract."

It is also noteworthy that dual contracts were signed with a Chinese capital parent company. The company was reportedly sent an ADOR sale proposal by HYBE's board members.

In this regard, after NewJeans members returned following the judgment on the validity of their exclusive contract (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 concerns, stating, "According to the recorded conversation with Daniel's mother in November 2025, despite the most serious violations of the exclusive contract, Daniel consistently ignored the breach unlike other members and responded with an attitude of not dwelling on past events." They added, "It appears Daniel had no intention of taking corrective measures or equivalent actions. The situation is such that non-cooperation regarding corrective measures 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.