u/colosusx1

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.