“악의적 재판지연”vs”의도 없다”…어도어-다니엘 소송 공전 연합뉴스 한민족센터Google 뉴스에서 헤드라인 및 의견 더보기
The legal battle between ADOR and NewJeans member Danielle has hit a tense stalemate, with accusations of “malicious” courtroom tactics flying during their first hearing on May 14, 2026. The proceedings, which center on a damages lawsuit filed by ADOR against Danielle and former ADOR CEO (and current OK Records CEO) Min Hee-jin, ended without any substantive progress as both sides clashed over the pace of the trial.
During the hearing at the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Nam In-soo of Civil Division 31, legal representatives for Danielle and Min Hee-jin accused ADOR of employing a deliberate strategy to drag out the litigation. Danielle’s attorney pointed out that ADOR abruptly dismissed its previous legal team and appointed new counsel four months after the lawsuit was first initiated.
The defense characterized this move as a “blatant and malicious trial delay,” noting that ADOR had previously committed to submitting an evidence plan by the end of last month. Instead, the attorney argued, the company changed its legal representation and is now attempting to restart the trial process from the beginning. The defense further asserted that since key evidence has already been presented in separate cases—including the lawsuit to confirm the validity of the exclusive contract between ADOR and NewJeans—there is no legitimate reason for ADOR to be unable to establish an evidence plan.
Adding a poignant layer to the legal dispute, Danielle’s lawyer suggested that the delay is a calculated move to hinder the artist’s career. The attorney claimed the strategy appears designed to ensure that Danielle “consumes the most shining period of her career as an idol” through prolonged legal disputes, regardless of the eventual verdict.
Min Hee-jin’s legal team echoed these sentiments, arguing that the refusal to submit an evidence plan and the sudden change in counsel stem from a “malicious intent to devastate the lives of the defendants,” a tactic they insisted should not be tolerated by the court.
In response, ADOR firmly denied any intention to stall the proceedings. The company countered that the defendants are demanding an “unusual speed” for the trial and maintained that they have never acted to obstruct Danielle’s professional activities.
This ongoing conflict underscores the high stakes of the corporate and creative rift within the industry, as the legal struggle continues to overshadow the professional trajectories of the involved parties.
