ADOR and Danielle‘s side are engaged in a legal dispute over whether the ‘deliberate delay of litigation’ is occurring during the damages lawsuit.
ADOR filed a lawsuit seeking approximately 43.1 billion won ($29 million) in damages against Danielle and Min Hee Jin, among others. Danielle’s side argued that ADOR was intentionally delaying the trial by expanding the scope of defendants and requesting postponements.
In response, ADOR’s side countered that the complexity of the case required additional review time, and there was no intention to delay.
On this day, the defense stated, “The plaintiff dismissed all of their legal representatives who were most familiar with the case without a proper explanation. They also failed to submit an evidence plan by the April 30th deadline. They then appointed new legal representatives just before the hearing on May 8th and requested that the trial start over from the beginning. The defendants believe this is a clear attempt to intentionally delay the trial and ignore the court’s previous procedural discussions.”
They continued, “The plaintiff should no longer be allowed to submit new evidence since the deadline for submitting evidence has already passed. The defendants believe the plaintiff should face strict consequences for the way they are handling the lawsuit, and that the trial should not be delayed according to the plaintiff’s wishes.”
The plaintiff’s side responded, “The plaintiff wants the matter resolved quickly and agrees with the court handling the case efficiently. However, we believe it is unfair to limit the plaintiff’s ability to submit evidence. Although we have not yet submitted our evidence plan, we have no intention of delaying the trial.”
They further stated, “The defendants are asking for the trial to move unusually quickly because of defendant Danielle’s entertainment activities. However, the reasons they provided are vague and mainly based on psychological concerns rather than the actual harm it could cause to the defendant. The plaintiff has never interfered with Danielle Marsh’s activities. In fact, it would be contradictory for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit to terminate a contract while also trying to block entertainment activities. We hope Danielle can continue her activities freely. We also believe the plaintiff should not be accused of obstructing activities when no such actions have taken place. Danielle’s career will not suddenly stop because of this lawsuit, nor will there be a major disruption. However, restricting the plaintiff’s ability to submit evidence would be unfair.”
>> Minji Returning to NewJeans? ADOR Shares Birthday Post and Positive Update
In the meantime, watch trending K-dramas for free on Amasian TV.
Source (1)
