ADOR Calls It Paperwork, Danielle's Side Calls It Sabotage in the 33 Billion Won Suit

Danielle's legal team told a Seoul court on the 22nd that ADOR is still sitting on 5 of the 18 items requested by the court-appointed appraiser, and accused the agency of "blatantly" dragging out the case. ADOR flatly denies it. The judge's response to both sides was blunt: a document that isn't produced in time is treated as if it doesn't exist.

The hearing was the sixth in ADOR's roughly 33 billion won damages suit against the former NewJeans member, her family and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin. It was heard by Civil Division 31 of the Seoul Central District Court (presiding judge Nam In-su). The appraiser's job is to assess the damages ADOR claims, and that needs ADOR's internal records.

Danielle's side: a month of promises

Danielle's counsel said ADOR told the court at the previous hearing that everything was ready and would go to the appraiser the next day. A month later, the defense argued, some materials were still missing. Only after the defense raised the issue did ADOR file extra documents "in a rush" the evening before the hearing.

Even then, five items were absent. The defense said the filing also lacked detailed records on scheduled activities, which it called material ADOR should obviously hold internally. It also took issue with ADOR citing trade secrets again, since the sides had reportedly agreed to redact those portions and submit the rest.

"We suspect they are trying to keep delaying the suit by submitting sloppy materials and then waiting for further requests," the lawyer said. Counsel added that, given ADOR's conduct so far, no new promise could be trusted, and asked the court to keep the schedule already set.

ADOR's side: slow, not stalling

ADOR's lawyer said most of the available materials went to the appraiser in September, and that follow-up requests were prepared and filed afterward. Some items involve trade secrets or confidentiality duties, and some are hard for ADOR to obtain at all.

The agency said it submitted what it believed was complete, then supplemented after the appraiser flagged gaps. Collecting records across several labels took time, it said. "This is an appraisal we applied for, so there is no reason for us to obstruct it," the lawyer said, conceding the defense may not be satisfied but denying any intent to delay.

What the judge said

Summing up the dispute, the bench said that if a party was given the chance to submit and fails to do so without a reasonable reason, the material should be considered nonexistent. Once adequate time has passed, it said, not producing something means it isn't there.

That is a procedural warning, not a ruling on who is right. But it puts the pressure on ADOR to either hand over the remaining items or explain why it can't. The next hearing is set for November 12, and the following one for December 3 at 3:30 p.m.