Pinned Tweet
🚨ADOR–Danielle Lawsuit: What the Change in Claims Means
A Simple Explanation
The original claim in December
Last December, ADOR claimed a total of KRW 33 billion from Danielle:
KRW 30 billion in contractual penalties — essentially a penalty for breach of contract
KRW 3 billion in damages — including losses from cancelled advertising deals
The claim suddenly changed on June 2
On June 2, ADOR changed KRW 10 billion of the KRW 30 billion contractual penalty into a claim for damages caused by “NewJeans being unable to carry out group activities.”
The key issue is that this KRW 10 billion is not a loss allegedly caused by Danielle alone. It concerns losses related to all five members of NewJeans.
In other words, if the court accepts this claim, it could potentially create a basis for arguing that the other members also share legal responsibility for the damages.
This raises the possibility that the company may have been trying to avoid the public impact of directly suing all five members, while still creating a path to hold them responsible.
Why is this change unusual?
A contractual penalty and damages are legally different things.
Contractual penalty: An amount already set out in the contract as a penalty for breach. If the legal basis for ending the contract is established, the amount can generally be calculated relatively simply, for example based on past revenue and the remaining contract period.
Damages: ADOR has to prove how much money it would have earned if NewJeans had continued normal activities. This involves a hypothetical calculation and is much more difficult to calculate and prove.
Yet ADOR took KRW 10 billion out of the much simpler contractual penalty claim and changed it into a damages claim that is harder to calculate and prove.
The total amount being claimed was also reduced from KRW 43 billion to KRW 33 billion. At first glance, ADOR appears to have voluntarily chosen a legally more complicated route while also reducing the amount it is seeking.
This is why the possibility mentioned above — that the change was intended to create a basis for holding all the members jointly responsible — does not appear to be an unreasonable interpretation.
Three possible reasons behind the change
1. ADOR may have become less confident about claiming the contractual penalty
It is possible that ADOR saw legal difficulties in establishing the basis needed to claim the contractual penalty following the termination of Danielle’s exclusive contract. If so, recovering the full contractual penalty may have become more difficult.
2. It may be intended to make the lawsuit last longer
A damages claim based on lost NewJeans activities is much more complicated to calculate and prove.
It may require additional procedures, such as appointing experts to calculate the alleged losses or calling witnesses. This could make the lawsuit take much longer.
Therefore, one possible interpretation is that the change was intended to prolong the legal dispute.
3. It may be a way to avoid public criticism while also avoiding a contradiction with ADOR’s previous position
In the 2025 lawsuit over the validity of the exclusive contracts, ADOR told the court that it was fully prepared to support NewJeans and that all the members needed to do was return. ADOR made an emotional appeal to the court that it wanted the members back and would take good care of them if they returned.
After the court ruled in ADOR’s favor, however, suing all five members only a few months later could have created serious public criticism and could also appear inconsistent with the position ADOR had previously taken in court.
This makes another interpretation possible: instead of directly suing all five members, ADOR may have chosen to sue only one member first, while structuring the damages claim in a way that could later involve the other members as well. This could also place a much heavier burden and responsibility on that one member.
‼️The ADOR–Danielle Lawsuit: What the Change in the Claims Means (Explained Simply)
(Original Korean text by @andatortoise)
The original claim in December:
ADOR sought a total of 33 billion KRW from Danielle.
30 billion KRW in penalty damages (essentially a contractual penalty for breach of contract)
3 billion KRW in damages (including losses related to terminated advertising deals, etc.)
The sudden change on June 2:
ADOR changed 10 billion KRW of the 30 billion KRW penalty damages into a claim for “damages suffered because NewJeans was unable to carry out activities.”
The problem is that this 10 billion KRW in alleged losses was not caused by Danielle alone, but relates to losses arising from all five NewJeans members being unable to carry out group activities.
In other words, if this claim is accepted by the court, it could potentially create a basis for members other than Danielle to be held liable later as well.
Why Is This Change Strange?
Originally, penalty damages and compensatory damages are two completely different concepts.
Penalty damages:
A predetermined monetary penalty stipulated in the contract. Once the grounds for terminating the contract are recognized, the amount can be calculated relatively simply, such as by applying a formula based on the remaining contract period and past revenue.
Compensatory damages:
This requires estimating the hypothetical amount of money NewJeans would have earned if they had been able to continue their normal activities, which makes the calculation much more complicated and the amount much harder to prove.
Yet ADOR took 10 billion KRW out of the relatively straightforward penalty-damages claim and turned it into a compensatory-damages claim that is much more difficult to calculate and substantiate.
It also reduced the total amount being claimed from 43 billion to 33 billion KRW. At first glance, it almost looks as though ADOR voluntarily made its own claim more difficult.
Two Possible Reasons for the Change
1. Because the penalty-damages claim had become difficult to pursue
It appears that ADOR may have found itself in a situation where it would be difficult to obtain the penalty damages in the first place, as it became increasingly difficult to establish that the termination of Danielle’s exclusive contract was legally valid.
2. To deliberately prolong the lawsuit
By changing the claim to damages that are more difficult both to calculate and prove, additional procedures may become necessary, such as expert appraisal, where an expert is asked to calculate the alleged damages, or requests to examine witnesses. This can significantly prolong the proceedings.
In other words, it could be viewed as a strategy intended to buy time and drag out the litigation.
Conclusion
If this were a normal management agency, once all of the members had expressed their intention to return, it should have worked to normalize NewJeans’ activities and resume their comeback as quickly as possible. That would have been the best choice not only for the agency and the artists, but also for the company’s revenue and corporate value.
Instead, ADOR, under CEO Lee Do-kyung, filed another lawsuit against Danielle, prolonging the legal dispute, and this time changed the claims in a way that potentially entangles the other members as well.
On the surface, it looks like a lawsuit targeting Danielle alone. But in reality, the structure of the case has changed in a way that could also involve questions of the other members’ potential legal liability.
As a result, the normalization of NewJeans’ group activities has been delayed even further, while the current ADOR management, including Lee Do-kyung, is effectively bringing about the losses ADOR is suffering from NewJeans’ suspension of activities through its own actions.
토끼리 retweeted
버니즈!!!!!! 우리 투표해야해요!!!!!!!!!!!
토끼리 retweeted
Gitaris yang membantu Danielle dalam menciptakan lagu adalah Jung Seok Hoon. Dia adalah gitaris utama Pallete Band yang selalu mendampingi IU di setiap sesi live YouTube.
Selain aktif di tim musik IU, Jung Seok Hoon juga dikenal sebagai gitaris band indie rock Korea bernama The Whales.
-🐼
토끼리 retweeted
Always With Bunnies’, ‘NEWJEANS IS FIVE’, ‘Free NewJeans’, ‘뉴진스 다섯은 하나’, ‘전원 복귀 아니면 전원 계약 해지’, ‘아무리 돌려도 색깔은 파란 바지’라는 해시태그와 함께 버니즈데이를 축하하며 다니엘까지 소속된 다섯 명의 뉴진스를 지지하고 있다.
버니즈는 “우리는 단순한 팬덤이 아니다. 우리는 버니즈이자 뉴진스의 가장 친한 친구들”이라며 “우리가 뉴진스 곁에 남은 것은 단순히 즐거워서가 아니라 멤버들이 우리에게 너무나 소중하기 때문”이라고 뉴진스를 향한 변함없는 팬심을 드러냈다.
이어 “컴백도, 새로운 소식도, 음악도, 무대도 없다. 멤버들이 다시 공연할 수 있을지조차 모르지만 우리는 여전히 기다리고 있다”며 “다섯 명의 소녀들과 하나의 움직임으로 성장한 팬덤”이라며 “우리는 언제까지나 뉴진스를 기다릴 것”이라고 전했다.
[TOP이슈] 버니즈데이 4주년에도 뉴진스 5인 완전체 기다린다…‘FreeNewJeans’ 지지 2026.10.29
topstarnews.net/news/article…
![[TOP이슈] 버니즈데이 4주년에도 뉴진스 5인 완전체 기다린다…‘FreeNewJeans’ 지지](https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/2115762516693516288/WtbBaBni?format=jpg&name=800x419)
토끼리 retweeted
bunnies pada tau gak ya, kalo tetep nyebarin konten baru lewat post ulang itu bisa ngebantu rebranding IP ador baru dan bisa aja dijadikan bukti buat ador soal aktivitas mereka nanti di sidang danielle kedepannya?
coba baca ulang postingan ini.
[Sorotan Ulasan Menghadiri Sidang Ke-6]
Konsep "tanggung renteng tidak murni" (부진정연대책임) dan prediksi hasilnya jika diterapkan pada gugatan ADOR vs Danielle
: Sungguh mengerikan, menakutkan, dan membuat marah. Kalau kamu tidak bisa memahami ini, tolong jangan pernah menyebut dirimu Bunnies di mana pun, dan saya mohon dengan sangat agar kamu segera keluar dari fandom secepatnya.
토끼리 retweeted
회사의 대표기관한테 구두로 동의를 받았는데 이게 어떻게 사측의 동의가 없는 게 됨??
2심도 "뉴진스 뮤비 무단 게시한 제작사, 어도어에 10억 배상"
yna.co.kr/view/AKR2026102913…
📍📝오늘 돌유단 2심 스크립트
(방청한 버니즈들과 크로스체크하여 작성하였으며 세세한 어투와 용어가 실제와 차이가 있을 수 있습니다)
<사건에 대한 원고 청구 취지 설명>
이 사건은 아이돌그룹 뉴진스의 ETA 뮤직비디오에 관한 사건임
원고의 주장은 피고 돌유단의 사전 서면 동의 없이 온오프라인에 게시하거나 공개하지 않아야 한다는 계약을 위반했다는 내용임
또한 피고들에 대해서는 저작권침해, 명예훼손 등의 불법행위를 했다는 내용
<2심 재판부의 판결에 대한 설명>
피고 돌괴단에 대해서는 위약벌 청구가 문제인데, 2심 재판부도 대부분은 1심과 동일하게 판단함. 즉 피고들에 대한 저작권침해, 명예훼손, 모욕 등의 청구는 하지 않고 1심과 동일함
또한 쟁점이 되는 피고에 대한 위약벌 청구에 관련하여 1심과 동일함
설령 돌유단이 원고 대표이사였던 민희진의 구두합의를 받았다 할지라도 사전 서면동의 없이 감독판 추가 영상을 게시하고 나아가 애플의 로고를 제거하였다 해도 원고와의 서면계약을 위반 하긴 한 것
2심 재판부도 ETA 뮤직비디오는 OMG나 디토와 동일하게 판단하지는 못했음
다만 1심 판결과 달라진 부분이 있음. 제작 대금 20억에 대한 위약벌은 그의 2배인 40억원. 1심에서는 40억원을 지급할 근거가 있다고 전제하며 그에 대한 일부 청구인 10억원을 판결. 2심 재판부는 이와 생각을 달리해서 위약벌 약정은 2심의 1/4 정도인 10억원 범위 내에서만 유효하고 나머지 부분은 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서(공서양속)을 위반하였기에 무효라고 판단 했음
이걸로 1심 판결과 같이 10억원이 인용된 점은 동일하나 2심의 논리는 1심과 차이가 있음
<판결 주문>
그리하여 다음과 같이 선고함
원고의 피고들에 대한 항소 및 피고 주식회사 돌유단의 항소를 모두 기각한다.
항소 비용 중 원고와 피고 돌유단 사이에 생긴 부분은 각자 부담하고, 원고와 피고 신우석 사이에 생긴 부분은 원고가 부담한다
토끼리 retweeted
이딴 생각 어케 하는 거지? spin-spin.com/q/6ae21714ae85…
