On December 29, ADOR officially announced Danielle’s removal from NewJeans. ADOR also identified former CEO Min Hee Jin and one of Danielle’s family members as key figures behind the prolonged dispute.
While ADOR has not disclosed the specific grounds that justified Danielle’s contract termination, industry insiders claim there were clear violations serious enough to warrant legal action. This has drawn intense attention to how the upcoming lawsuit will unfold.
The speculation around a penalty exceeding ₩100 billion stems from the calculation method outlined in the Fair Trade Commission’s standard exclusive contract guidelines. Typically, penalty fees are calculated by multiplying the average monthly revenue from the two years prior to contract termination by the remaining contract period. When ADOR’s recent revenues—₩110.3 billion in 2023 and ₩111.1 billion in 2024—are applied alongside Danielle’s remaining contract period of approximately 54 months, the theoretical compensation per member reaches around ₩108 billion, surpassing the ₩100 billion mark.
However, legal experts widely agree that the likelihood of a court approving such an amount is extremely low. Courts have the authority to reduce penalties deemed excessively high, and in practice they closely examine multiple factors, including the artist’s individual contribution, the agency’s actual financial losses, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged contract breach. One legal professional noted that the ₩100 billion figure appears less like a realistic outcome and more like a pressure tactic designed to strengthen the agency’s position during litigation or settlement negotiations.
Some observers have also raised concerns that if Danielle were to lose the case, the debt could become a so-called “non-dischargeable liability,” meaning it could not be erased through personal rehabilitation or bankruptcy and might follow her for life. Legal experts have pushed back against this claim, calling it a fear-based narrative. For a debt to be classified as non-dischargeable, intentional and malicious wrongdoing must be proven—a legal threshold that is exceptionally difficult to meet in disputes over exclusive contracts.
Ultimately, many believe the case is likely to end in either a significant court-ordered reduction or a settlement reached before a final ruling. On December 30, ADOR officially filed a damages lawsuit seeking approximately ₩43.1 billion against Danielle and former CEO Min Hee-jin. While the agency has stated its intent to pursue accountability to the end, the reduced amount appears to reflect a more realistic assessment of what could be upheld in court.
Sources: Daum, Nate