The legal confrontation involving ADOR and Danielle, a member of NewJeans, has reached its fourth hearing regarding the agency's claim for 33 billion KRW in damages, which took place on July 23. Central to this case is whether ADOR incurred financial losses after Danielle ended her exclusive contract. A significant part of the discussions revolved around the extent to which NewJeans' commercial achievements were influenced by Min Hee-Jin, the former CEO of ADOR. As both parties debated the methodology for calculating future revenues, a financial expert appointed by the court indicated that Min Hee-Jin's role alone could not be seen as a guarantee of success.

According to reports from Korean media, the recent hearing was held at the Seoul Central District Court, where ADOR sought the court-appointed financial expert's opinion on the potential revenue NewJeans might have generated had Danielle remained with the agency. ADOR requested the expert to estimate "the sales that would have been generated if Danielle had continued activities at ADOR." This valuation is anticipated to be crucial in determining whether the agency is entitled to compensation and, if so, the amount.

However, Danielle's legal representatives challenged the feasibility of making such projections based solely on accounting data. They contended that predicting future earnings necessitates more than just analyzing financial documents. The defense emphasized that NewJeans' success is influenced by various non-financial elements, including the agency's production framework, staff dynamics, trust in artist management, and the overall environment in which the group operates.

The defense further argued that the financial success previously achieved by the group was under Min Hee-Jin's guidance, making it unreasonable to assume that similar results would persist after her departure. Among the points raised by Danielle's team were the erosion of trust between ADOR and the group prior to the contract terminations, the alleged decline in management quality following Min Hee-Jin's exit, the lack of a new producer, and the departure of several key personnel who had closely collaborated with the former CEO. Danielle's legal team reportedly questioned, "Is it meaningful to conduct an accounting appraisal while ignoring all these preconditions, such as producing and the trust relationship?" ADOR countered this argument, asserting that NewJeans' popularity was primarily driven by the members themselves rather than any single producer. The agency maintained that the group could have continued to thrive even after Min Hee-Jin's departure, suggesting that future revenues should be evaluated independently of her influence.

According to the expert, "Just because Min Hee-Jin is involved, it doesn't guarantee success. There have been instances where outcomes were not favorable." The expert also noted that comparable industry data could be utilized to assess her actual impact more accurately. The expert's forthcoming report is expected to be a pivotal piece of evidence as the court evaluates whether ADOR experienced financial damages and how those losses should be quantified. During the hearing, the judge recognized the complexities involved in estimating damages in this case, stating that "the difficulty of this appraisal appears higher than in other cases," and acknowledged that the final decision could vary significantly based on the assumptions made during the valuation process. Another critical issue raised was whether ADOR's claimed financial losses should be calculated based solely on Danielle's individual contributions or on the collective promotions of NewJeans. The next hearings in this damages lawsuit are set for September 10 and October 22, 2026.