ADOR, which recently notified Danielle of the termination of her exclusive contract, has officially filed a massive damages lawsuit worth approximately ₩43.1 billion against the former New Jeans member and two other individuals. Danielle responded by appointing legal counsel and preparing for a full-scale court battle.
On December 29, 2025, ADOR released an official statement announcing that it had terminated Danielle’s exclusive contract. The agency added that it intends to hold a member of Danielle’s family and former ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin legally accountable, saying they bear significant responsibility for triggering the controversy and for New Jeans‘departure and return delayed.
As previously announced, ADOR has now filed a lawsuit seeking contractual penalties and damages against Danielle and the other two. While some in legal circles initially speculated that the fine alone could exceed ₩100 billion, the total amount sought by ADOR has been confirmed at approximately ₩43.1 billion.
The case was assigned to the 31 Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Nam In-soo. This is the same group currently handling high-profile cases involving HYBE and former ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin, including shareholder agreement disputes and share buyback requests.
Danielle moved quickly in response, appointing legal representation and filing a power of attorney with the court, signaling her intention to actively challenge ADOR’s claims.
As the legal battle intensifies, concerns are growing that if Danielle loses the damages lawsuit, the resulting debt may not be payable through personal rehabilitation or bankruptcy proceedings. Legal experts note this Under Korean law, liabilities arising from intentional torts can be classified as non-repayable debts.
ADOR previously explained that the termination of the contract was based on alleged violations of the exclusive agreement, including entering into conflicting contracts, engaging in independent entertainment activities, and actions that damaged the reputation or credibility of both the agency and the agency. New Jeans. ADOR said that, despite requests for correction, the violations were not remedied within the expected deadline.
According to legal analysts The wording of ADOR suggests the possibility of an “intentional” breach of contract. If a court determines that Danielle knowingly breached her contract, any damages awarded could actually be considered non-compensatable, meaning they would remain enforceable regardless of bankruptcy or rehabilitation filings. However, experts also warn this proving intentional violation of this standard will not be easy.
Having already suffered a total defeat in a previous lawsuit upholding the validity of her exclusive contract with ADOR, Danielle now faces another critical legal judgment. With huge financial interests and long-term career implications at stake, all eyes are on how the court will rule in this ongoing high-profile dispute.
Sources: Daum
