u/colosusx1

Yonhap Reporter Jung Yoon-joo

- Whether Visa Type and Expiration Information Constitute Personal Information at Issue

Police have summoned the complainant and launched a full-scale investigation on the 10th into allegations that ADOR, the agency of girl group NewJeans, leaked visa information belonging to Hanni, an Australian member of Vietnamese descent.

Attorney Park Kang-hoon of Kangseong Law Office, representing popular culture critic Kim Seong-su, who filed a complaint against ADOR and its executives and employees on the 28th of last month for alleged violations of the Personal Information Protection Act, appeared at Yongsan Police Station in Seoul on this day.

Critic Kim previously alleged that ADOR and others leaked Hanni’s personal information—including the type of her E-6 (Entertainment) visa, its expiration date, and the status of documents related to her visa extension application—to the media and others during the dispute over her exclusive contract.

Attorney Park explained that during the complainant’s questioning, police repeatedly asked whether information such as the type of visa and its expiration date falls under the category of information protected by the Personal Information Protection Act.

During the questioning, Park argued, “The Personal Information Protection Act does not protect only information that cannot be obtained through any means whatsoever. If information belonging to an individual’s private sphere is disclosed outside legitimate channels, the elements required for a violation of the law are satisfied.”

Regarding reports by multiple entertainment media outlets about the status of Hanni’s visa extension documents and the progress of the extension procedure, Park also claimed that a very small number of ADOR employees had provided some of the information to certain reporters.

“The agency was supposed to manage the residency status that is essentially a lifeline for a foreign national, but instead, it used it as a weapon,” Park said. “It must be determined through whose hands this information made its way to the media.”

Meanwhile, Park added that police had confirmed receiving more than 1,000 petitions written by citizens and fans calling for ADOR to be severely punished.

Earlier, Hanni had declared the termination of her exclusive contract, citing the agency’s failure to fulfill its obligations, and became embroiled in a dispute with the company. During this period, her existing visa expired.

Subsequently, in February of last year, some entertainment media outlets reported that if Hanni left ADOR, the agency would cease to exist as her sponsor, meaning she would no longer meet the requirements for visa issuance and could potentially become an illegal resident.

translated by: https://x.com/juantokki/status/2086765332535067105

other sources:

Daily Sports https://v.daum.net/v/20260810175650903

Herald Economy https://v.daum.net/v/20260810183302055

Newsis https://n.news.naver.com/article/003/0014118806

By Reporter Lee Jeong-guk

- Cultural critic Kim Seong-su files criminal complaint with Seoul Yongsan Police Station

ADOR, the agency of NewJeans, who recently celebrated their 4th debut anniversary, has been criminally reported on allegations of leaking visa-related personal information belonging to member Hanni, an Australian national.

Cultural critic Kim Seong-su held a press conference in front of Seoul Yongsan Police Station on the morning of the 28th and announced that he had filed a criminal complaint against ADOR and its employees for alleged violations of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Kim alleged that ADOR and the employees responsible for handling Hanni’s immigration status had unlawfully disclosed personal information obtained through their duties, leaked it without authorization, and provided it to third parties for purposes beyond those for which it had originally been collected.

According to the complaint, ADOR obtained and processed information during the course of managing Hanni’s activities and immigration status, including the type of her E-6 (Arts and Entertainment) visa, its expiration date, the progress of her visa extension application documents, and whether she had signed them. Kim claims that this information was publicly disclosed through media reports citing “multiple music industry officials” between December 2024 and February 2025.

In particular, Kim argues that details reported on February 11 of last year—including the preparation of Hanni’s visa extension documents and whether she had refused to sign them—were information that would have been difficult for anyone other than Hanni herself and agency personnel directly involved in handling the matter to know. Kim urged investigative authorities to identify the actual source of the information and determine how it was passed to the media.

The complaint also includes as evidence a statement released by the parents of the NewJeans members on February 12 of last year. At the time, the parents stated that approximately 70 speculative news articles had been published over two days discussing Hanni’s visa type and expiration date, and they expressed concern that her personal information and rights had been violated.

In February of last year, several entertainment media outlets reported that if Hanni left ADOR, she would no longer have a sponsoring agency, meaning she would no longer meet the requirements for an E-6 (Arts and Entertainment) visa and could become an undocumented resident. Following those reports, some anti-fans even went so far as to report Hanni to the Ministry of Justice as an undocumented immigrant.

link to press conference:

https://www.youtube.com/live/2ZXyVFIbW6E?si=LMeBu58pOdsoj54P

1. The plaintiff applied for an expert witness, but was criticized by the court for not even considering the defendant's position and opinion. The plaintiff had expected the appraisal to take a month based solely on their own opinion, but the court pointed out that unlike manufacturing, the entertainment industry requires a comprehensive judgment of factors like trust breakdown, producer's capabilities, etc., and that expected values must also be quantified with statistical data. The plaintiff expressed reluctance, saying they had accepted without such opinions.
   Now, saying even two months is tight, the court instructed to aim for submission of the first report on 9/10. The plaintiff also filed a damages claim without calculating expected profits in the expert witness application. <- [Trial delay strategy]

2. The plaintiff calculated the termination period from November 2024 to November 2025. They claimed the same sales revenue as before, but in the entertainment industry, with the absence of the producer and core staff, a typical gap period of over one year is predicted, and they themselves had notified the members of a break of over 1 year and 6 months. In other words, they are claiming the same sales revenue in a situation where revenue from activities cannot be expected.

3. The plaintiff claims there is no evidence of Dani's solo activities and that its damages for NewJeans' common matters. <- [Reconfirmed claim that it's a targeted retaliatory lawsuit against only Dani and a terror control over the members.]

4. Proposed additional trial date of 10/8, but postponed to 10/22 <- [Trial delay strategy]

5. [The producer has still not been decided, and the debut video is, as the name suggests, for the purpose of collecting oppressive trial materials for the trial and for media play.]

https://x.com/reeteam609/status/2080203737323442574

bracketed is commentary from the user

————

https://x.com/457ww

https://x.com/leeetokki

these tokkis have live tweets from attending, but they’re a little messy with twitter formatting

————

https://x.com/haerins_nyang/status/2080183148671840369

A slightly longer thread summarizing the main points of contention in this hearing

————

https://x.com/hahagatung/status/2080194588783120674?s=61

exchange of the judge questioning the appraisal procedure thats being followed

To put it simply, it means this -

Appraiser: I am the person calculating based on the content commissioned by Ador (a HYBE subsidiary). It is not my role to directly judge Danielle’s claims.

Judge: So, Danielle’s side's opinion wasn't reflected at all?

Appraiser: Yes. I only conducted the appraisal within the scope commissioned by Ador (a HYBE subsidiary).

Then the judge gets to the core.

Judge: Things like future growth rates weren't estimated and included by Ador as well?

Ador (a HYBE subsidiary): No. Future growth rates aren't something that can be easily determined.

Judge: In that case, wouldn't it be more accurate to first consult an entertainment industry expert to confirm 'what the growth rate in this industry is like,' and then have an accountant perform the calculations based on that?

In other words, the judge is asking, "Accountants are good at calculations, but aren't they not the professionals who can expertly judge the future growth rates in the entertainment industry?"

Ador (a HYBE subsidiary) responds like this.

One entertainment expert can't solve all the problems. Even if an entertainment expert provides the data, ultimately the amount calculations have to be done by an accounting expert.

Then the judge raises the issue again.

It is correct to proceed with the accounting appraisal requested by Ador (a HYBE subsidiary). But who fills the gap between the accounting expert and the entertainment expert? That part seems very difficult.

The appraiser responds to this by saying it doesn't seem like something for them to decide. Meaning it's outside their role.

Finally, the judge

"In previous other cases, we also requested opinions on future potential, but even then, that part was blank in the appraisal report."

says this, pointing out that the problem of it being difficult to judge future growth potential based solely on accounting appraisals has been repeated in previous cases as well.

————

NB: Apologies to all who usually expect better summaries. It seems the bulk of this hearing were oral arguments about damages calculations, procedural matters and the judge’s understanding of how the process will be performed. Ador wants to use 2023-2024 as a basis, Danielle‘s side wants to use 2025-2026. Both for obvious reasons. There seems to not be a lot of follow up on the inquiries to the outside companies that were talked about last hearing, or the two witnesses Ador asked to use.

Ktokkis seem to be optimistic that this trial went well for Danielle based on the judges line of questioning, however I don’t really think so. To me, it sounds like he just wants to be comprehensive and it was somewhat neutral. The big win for Ador is that this piece was not wrapped up in one hearing, and an additional hearing was added. Any extension or delay I’d consider a win for them. When teambunnies provides a full transcript, I will update or create a separate post depending on timing.

Information compiled mostly from tokkis that attended the hearing. They have paraphrased more this hearing because Ador has repeated many of the same arguments as the last hearing.

————

As soon as we entered, the judge turned to the 'plaintiff' side and said, "I'm confused whether the evidence you've submitted is for the court or for the journalists and the media—I'll only allow citations of evidence for the purpose of explaining to the bench."

The plaintiff's PPT is filled with 'words' quoted from the Telegram conversation, so the defendant side also requested that the Telegram screen not be displayed.

The judge also requested that the screen not be displayed, as this trial involves only a celebrity, not a public figure.

The plaintiff agreed to explain only the context within the wording.

The plaintiff's claim is that, based on the statement that some production costs were invested in Emotional Oranges, exclusive entertainment activities were conducted.

When the judge asked in response,
"Are you acknowledging that the filming was suspended?"

The plaintiff replied, "I do not acknowledge it."

According to the judge's remarks, to the plaintiff who said they received an answer from Emotional Oranges that did not match the facts, the judge suggested that instead of continuing with the same claim, they should verify the bank account details.

There’s a ‘consulting fee’ at ComplexCon? Isn’t that money meant for MHJ? Beep boop tampering! [tokkis skipped over some of this as it was unrelated to Danielle, many claims were made against MHJ tampering, will add article at the end with Ador’s claims]

I'm hearing claims that Min Hee-jin made contact with Chinese capital to tamper with NewJeans.
These are all things I already heard during last year's shareholder agreement trial arguments... The fact that I'm suddenly thinking, "Wait, is this a regression story worldline?" [Judge Nam already heard HYBE’s allegation of this tampering from MHJ in her shareholders lawsuit, he was the presiding judge there]

Defendant: The plaintiff pieces together the obtained evidence to claim that there is some extraordinary reason only for Danielle. However, this does not apply only to Danielle. The plaintiff already knew all the details in the prior lawsuit (exclusive contract termination).

Judge
Does the plaintiff have any rebuttal?

Plaintiff
Since it's new evidence, our claim is new (in fact, rambling incoherently, so it's hard to tell what they're saying...).

Judge
Then let's do this.
Was it mentioned in the prior case regarding album production and photo shoots?

Plaintiff
I think it was mentioned, but I'm not sure.

Judge: Please verify with both parties whether it was mentioned in the preceding case and submit it from the following prepared document.

plaintiff: "You left on your own, came back after the court ruled against you, now you're saying 'but you told us to come back and promise to forgive the past"

"That's the attitude of someone who's in the wrong" [crazy statement, contradicts Ador CEO’s statement]

Complexcon (related to AAO), everything before the union establishment, done together by all members. EO, Elle, Omega were all known to the company side from previous prior incidents. Moreover, the members have never performed under the NewJeans name.

They're claiming that saying only Danielle has a significant reason for termination is a violation of estoppel in the lawsuit and a breach of the intent

Judge
The plaintiff is grouping Danielle and Danielle’s mother together in their claims, so I request that the two be separated at the next trial.

Defendant: The plaintiff's side has never once given Danielle an opportunity to rectify the situation. They sent a registered mail and immediately terminated the contract right after.
It seems like from the beginning, only Danielle was the one determined to terminate the contract.

The plaintiff continues to state that it is unlikely to respond to emails from overseas corporations, and even if the Korean corporation requests a fact check, it does not seem like they will comply.

The judge continues to propose measures to quickly conclude the Danielle case.

The plaintiff's side responded that if the defendant identifies which parts of the plaintiff's claims regarding the consultation with Danielle they do not acknowledge, they will refute only those points to expedite the trial, and that the trial is being prolonged because the defendant refuses to acknowledge everything.

The judge immediately sent an email to the overseas corporation so that both parties could receive responses.

The judge stated that a direct verification is needed to confirm whether there is any fact of saying to the plaintiff's side, "I will grant NewJeans a one-year vacation."

Additionally, regarding the damages claimed against Danielle, it was stated that it was calculated based on the projected revenue from 2025 activities, and the judge remarked that wouldn't it suffice for the plaintiff's side to just check the accounting records?

And the judge asked a question about how much difference Min Hee-jin's presence or absence makes to the revenue and whether that becomes emotional.

The defendant claims that two premises are needed for the 2025 revenue: Min Hee-jin's presence or absence and whether all members could have been active, therefore making it difficult to calculate the costs.

Judge: It seems like the plaintiff has specified a concrete plan for the appraisal request, but it's under the premise that the achievements from 2023 will continue afterward (2024, 2025), right?
Then, wouldn't it be no different from the company calculating it directly?

Defendant
If it’s an ‘appraisal easily done by an accountant’ as the plaintiff claims, it would be an appraisal that even an accountant doesn’t need to do.

Judge
The plaintiff’s logic has merit. The plaintiff says calculations should be based on the 2024 standards, while the defendant says they should be based on 2026 standards. Then, whether this should be handled by an accountant, or entrusted to another agency well-versed in this calculation method, or whether consultation should be sought—it’s difficult to clearly conclude.

Judge
Is it true that the defendant Daniel says he performed all the tasks that were under contract with Adore after the contract with Adore was terminated (or after he believed it was terminated)?
(⬆️Schedules that were carried out to avoid causing harm to Adore)

Defendant
Yes, I performed almost all of them.

Judge
Asked the plaintiff until when they could submit the appraisal application

Plaintiff
If you tell us, we usually say more than a month, but if you ask us to choose, we'd like to say two or three months

Judge
Until next week 7/10, and then the following week I'll receive the opinion brief

Defendant
Please make it until 7/8 for the plaintiff only

Plaintiff
That's not enough time

Judge
Both sides do it by 7/10

Judge
Are the witnesses you requested friendly witnesses or hostile witnesses?

Plaintiff
They are friendly witnesses.

Judge
Then isn't the questionnaire itself the answer?
What matters now is objective facts, but there are too many subjective questions in it, so why not just do it as written testimony and only ask about the core disputed issues at the next hearing?

The witness is worried about their name being exposed and facing cyberbullying

This sounds like something the plaintiff keeps hearing in all the other HYBE affiliate trials

If the manuscript is submitted for witness examination in writing at the next hearing, there will be no witness examination.

The fifth hearing is scheduled for 9/10.

sourced mostly from https://x.com/leeetokki

https://x.com/457ww

————

https://m.star.ytn.co.kr/ent_view.php?s_mcd=0117&key=202607021804484670&pos=

Ador alleged NewJeans entered an exclusive contract with AAO. The Korean media implies it‘s a label contract, but I have doubts. I think its a performance contract for complexcon that Ador is exaggerating.