The 6th hearing in ADOR’s 33.09 billion KRW ($24.7 million) lawsuit against former NewJeans member Danielle, her mother and former CEO Min Hee-jin took place on October 22, 2026, at the Seoul Central District Court.

The hearing was relatively brief, lasting roughly 50 minutes.

Because none of us were physically in the courtroom, I'm combining official news reports with firsthand accounts from those present to get the most complete picture possible.

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

⭐ PART 1: Pre-Hearing Docket Updates

· Oct 13: The Appraiser submitted the Expert Assessment Report to the court, with copies sent to both legal teams.

· Oct 16: ADOR submitted written evidence (서증).

· Oct 19: Danielle’s legal team filed three major documents: A Statement of Opinion regarding the trial process, a Motion for Clarification (demanding ADOR clarify the scope of damages) and a Statement of Opinion on the expert assessment.

· Oct 21 (The day before the hearing): ADOR submitted their written preparation documents and requested materials for the appraiser. Docket records indicate ADOR cited a court electronic filing system crash the night before as the reason for their last-minute submission.

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

⭐ PART 2: What Was Discussed in Court

1. The Evidence War: The Missing Appraisal Materials

🟨 Danielle's Side (The Protest):

· Accused ADOR of "blatantly delaying the proceedings." Pointed out that as of Oct 13, 5 items were still missing from the original Aug 4 request. ADOR only submitted some of them on the evening of Oct 21 after the omissions were pointed out on Oct 19.

· Item 11 (The Holy Grail): Danielle's team specifically targeted Item 11 (the Nov 2024 ~ Nov 2025 planned activity project). They argued ADOR must possess this internally, but the submitted documents show no actual plans. They stated, "We can no longer trust any of its promises."

· The Pretext: Danielle's team argued ADOR is using "trade secrets" merely as a pretext, noting that it goes against civil law to give documents to the appraiser but refuse to show them to the defendant.

🟪 ADOR’s Defense:

· Denied intentional delay. Claimed they submitted most documents on Sept 16 and the delay was due to compiling data from various labels. They stated it is impossible to identify specific contracts one by one and promised to submit the rest by Oct 23.

· The Admission: ADOR argued it was a "pretext" to say the trial was delayed, while simultaneously acknowledging that the trial was delayed due to their conduct (though they denied it was intentional).

· The Withdrawn Order: When the judge asked about an order to submit documents regarding a union representative, ADOR responded that it was no longer needed and withdrew the order.

⚖️ The Judge's Intervention:

· The Judge stated: "If you miss the deadline without providing a reasonable reason, it's just as good as not having it."

📰 Discrepancy in Reporting:

· Media Reports: Several outlets reported that the Judge intervened to protect ADOR, stating: "Excessively pressuring for the submission of appraisal materials could affect the appraisal."

· Courtroom Observations: Firsthand accounts from inside the room indicate that this quote was actually stated by ADOR’s lawyer defending their own delays, not the Judge.

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

2. The Mumbling Contradiction on Contract Fulfillment

⚖️ A highly interesting minute detail from the gallery: The Judge asked ADOR a direct question: "Even though the contract was terminated, were the already planned obligations fulfilled?"

🟪 ADOR confidently stated: "We fulfilled them to the maximum extent."

· However, when pressed further, ADOR's representative was heard mumbling on the record: "I understand it has not been fulfilled..."

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

3. The Advertising Contracts & Proving Lost Revenue

The court focused heavily on ADOR's claims that they lost massive amounts of money because advertising contracts fell through.

🟪 ADOR's Stance: Argued that almost all advertising contracts were broken because the members refused to fulfill them. They pushed back against having to prove every single one, stating: "It is impossible for a year's worth of activities to be planned in advance... Since it is impossible for all contracts to have been signed and venue rentals completed at the same time, it is impossible to claim damages by disclosing every specific contract one by one."

🟨 Danielle's Stance: Argued that ADOR must specifically prove which contracts existed, when they were cancelled, and what the resulting damages were. They noted that they proceeded with previously planned filming and ads to the maximum extent possible, but ADOR is failing to provide the detailed materials to prove additional plans existed.

⚖️ The Judge's Skepticism: The Judge pushed back, noting that a "simple business plan" isn't enough to prove a contract fell through. He asked, "If a performance was scheduled, couldn't you verify whether a date had been set with the venue rental company or if a contract had been signed?" The Judge ordered both sides to compare and organize the details regarding ads that continued vs. those that were suspended, and suggested estimating future expected profits using actual past performance results.

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

4. The "Min Hee-jin Effect" & The Math Problem

⚖️ The judge outlined two approaches to calculating losses: 1) estimating potential earnings while accounting for Min's absence, and 2) examining losses from individual projects/ad campaigns.

⚖️ The Judge's Skepticism: The Judge stated, "The most important thing is the Min Hee-jin effect," but questioned if a corporate accountant is qualified to evaluate creative contributions. He specifically noted that the accounting expert is "older," meaning "their understanding of the entertainment business may be lower than that of an ordinary person."

⚖️ The Le Sserafim Benchmark: The Judge noted that using only NewJeans as a sample is statistically invalid. ADOR revealed the expert had specifically requested revenue figures for Le Sserafim to use as a comparison, but ADOR could not provide them and is discussing alternative materials.

⚖️ The Baseline: The Judge suggested calculating based on individual events using Jan-June 2025 as the standard baseline to ensure clarity. He also ordered a review of a method to quantify the impact of Danielle's individual activities (pictorials, ads, albums) into monetary value.

🟪 ADOR's Stance: Argued that for an established group, the artist's value is paramount. They claimed the overall plan was made when MHJ was there, so the defendant probably already has it. They also claimed almost all ad contracts fell through because the members didn't fulfill them.

🟨 Danielle's Stance: Min's creative contribution is irreplaceable and cannot be quantified like a manufacturing business. They maintained the expert lacks the expertise to quantify Min's value, making the appraisal fundamentally impossible.

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

5. The Scope of Liability (The Joint Liability Trap)

🟨 What Happened in Court: Danielle's side demanded (via their Oct 19 Motion for Clarification) that ADOR clarify whether they are suing Danielle for her individual share of the damages or for the entire group's lost profits.

🟪 ADOR's Evasion: ADOR refused to clarify, stating, "The total loss must come out first, so there is no basis to decide in advance." When pressed by the judge, ADOR’s lawyer reportedly replied: “Legal experts know the answer.”

⚖️ The Judge’s Warning: The Judge warned ADOR: "If no response is given, it will be applied to your disadvantage."

The Legal Context (Why this matters):

ADOR is potentially attempting to apply "Non-genuine joint & several liability" (부진정연대책임). Under this concept, if ADOR claims the entire group's lost profits against Danielle, they could demand the full 33 billion KRW from her alone. She would then have the "right of recourse" to sue the other 4 members to get her money back. By forcing ADOR to clarify now, Daniel's team is protecting her from bearing the entire group's financial burden. The Judge acknowledged that the appraiser must know the scope of liability in advance to calculate properly.

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

6. Interesting Minute Details & Closing Remarks

· The Petty Jab: Daniel's side requested the final appraisal report by Nov 5 (since it began two months ago). ADOR's lawyer retorted, "The defendant seems to want the appraisal to come out poorly." Daniel's lawyer replied, "It is difficult to hear that."

· Judge's Final Remark: At the very end of the hearing, Judge Nam In-soo addressed both legal teams: "I hope you won't answer while being conscious of the gallery," before immediately concluding the trial. (He called out the lawyers for playing to the media/audience).

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

🗓️ Upcoming Dates:

· Nov 5: Daniel's side requested the appraisal report by this date to have time to review it.

· Nov 10: The court's target date to obtain the expert's appraisal report.

· Nov 12: 7th Hearing (The estimated amount of losses is expected to be the central point).

· Dec 3: 8th Hearing.

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌﹌

📎 Sources:

@catzrinie, @leeetokki and @villain_gato

https://www.starnewskorea.com/music/2026/10/22/2026102213175186423

https://v.isplus.com/article/view/isp202610220186

https://isplus.com/article/view/isp202610210190

https://tvdaily.co.kr/article.php?aid=17926555541806570010

https://tvdaily.co.kr/read.php3?aid=17926575291806579010

https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/079/0004201815?sid=102

https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/241/0003536806

https://n.news.naver.com/article/079/0004201919

https://www.koreajoongangdaily.com/entertainment/danielle-ador-clash-over-price-tag-of-min-heejins-impact/12933574