The final damages recognized by the court will likely fall far below the agency’s claim.
Koreaboo
2 hours ago
ADOR’s damages lawsuit against NewJeans’ Danielle, her family, and former CEO Min Hee Jin is likely to be heavily reduced, even if the agency wins in court.
Legal experts estimate that the chance of the court fully accepting ADOR’s [krw]₩43.1 billion[krw] claim is under 5%. Many also claim that the final damages recognized by the court will likely fall far below the original claim, possibly ranging between [krw]₩1 billion[/krw] and ₩5 billion.
The main reason is related to how Korean courts calculate and limit damages in exclusive contract cases.
Under Korea’s Civil Act, courts are allowed to reduce damages when the claimed amount is considered excessive. Legal professionals point out that ₩43.1 billion is unusually high compared to past entertainment contract disputes, especially when Danielle’s remaining contract period is taken into account. Courts typically prioritize actual, proven losses over projected future profits, which often leads to significant cuts in claimed amounts.
Another major factor is artist contribution. Courts often recognize that a group’s success is not driven solely by agency planning and investment. ADOR is likely to argue that it invested heavily in Danielle’s debut.
However, if Danielle’s talent, popularity, and public recognition are deemed to have played a meaningful role in NewJeans’ success, that contribution can be deducted from the total damages ADOR is seeking.
Investment recovery is also expected to weigh heavily in the court’s decision. NewJeans has already generated substantial revenue through global activities and endorsements. Because of this, the court may determine that ADOR has already recovered much of its initial training, production, and marketing costs, further lowering the amount of damages that can be justified.
Finally, ADOR faces difficulty in extending liability beyond Danielle herself. The agency is attempting to hold Min Hee Jin and Danielle’s family jointly responsible, but legal experts say this requires clear evidence of direct instruction or illegal interference. Without such proof, claims against them could be dismissed entirely, narrowing the scope of recoverable damages.