BELIFT LAB v. Min Hee-jin: 1st Hearing
Summarized both sides’ arguments
“The plaintiff claims that the defendant’s statement that ‘ILLIT is a copycat of NewJeans’ constitutes false information and defamed the plaintiff. The plaintiff explained that this case caused problems such as a decrease in ILLIT’s SNS followers and album pre-orders, as well as the cancellation of advertising contracts.”
“The defendant’s position is to refute the plaintiff’s claims. The defendant argues that similarities between the two groups can be confirmed through ILLIT’s styling at their first official appearance, hanbok photo shoots, album design, choreography, and more. The defendant also argues that her statements were made in the public interest and therefore not unlawful, and that it is difficult to establish a causal relationship between the plaintiff’s damages and the defendant’s statements.”
Claimed that the defendant used her fandom to engage in so-called “brigading”—coordinated online attacks—against ILLIT, who had just debuted, thereby “inflicting tremendous harm on these delicate young girls,” and emphasized that this must be corrected
Regarding the choreography plagiarism claims, used the analogy of “Taekwondo poomsae (forms),” explaining that “just as evaluations differ depending on where force is applied or how movements are expressed even within set forms, girl group choreography inevitably involves similar movements being repeated”
Argued that a girl group’s individuality is expressed through their faces, bodies, and outfits rather than individual movements, and criticized the defendant for “absurdly claiming that ‘those movements are hers’”
Claimed that the defendant’s actions constitute a malicious method of promotion by attacking other groups, stating that “such illegal behavior must not be repeated”
Pointed out that the defendant herself was previously embroiled in plagiarism controversies, arguing that her current attitude is contradictory
Dismissed BELIFT LAB’s “brigading” claim as “an argument appealing to emotions”
Argued that the plagiarism issue was first raised “by the public and the media,” not by the defendant, immediately after ILLIT’s debut, and that the members’ parents also raised concerns
Countered that as CEO of ADOR, she sent multiple emails to resolve the issue internally, but HYBE instead responded with unlawful audits and media attacks
Emphasized that the press conference was an unavoidable choice to explain the true nature of the situation under these circumstances
Therefore argued that bringing issues in the K-pop production process to public attention constitutes “public interest purpose” rather than defamation, and that the claims are based on objective facts
Second hearing scheduled for March 7, 2025
- BELIFT LAB’s Side
Claimed that the core issue is the similarity of choreography, and announced plans to “explain through a presentation format that the choreography is not similar, as seeing is believing” at the next trial. - Min Hee-jin’s Side
Stated, “We believe the plaintiff did not file this lawsuit solely because of the choreography issue. There are more issues at stake,” suggesting there are other points of contention beyond choreography.
However, agreed to both sides presenting their opinions on choreography through a presentation format at the next trial.