BELIFT LAB v. Min Hee-jin: 3rd Hearing

The 12th Civil Division of the Seoul Western District Court held the third hearing in the 2 billion won damages lawsuit filed by BELIFT LAB against former CEO Min Hee-jin for defamation and obstruction of business.

During this hearing, both BELIFT LAB and Min Hee-jin’s side presented PowerPoint presentations to express their positions regarding the NewJeans-ILLIT plagiarism controversy. BELIFT LAB’s presentation was conducted first for 30 minutes, followed by Min Hee-jin’s side.

“The essence of this case is the defendant’s act of targeting.”
When HYBE and ADOR’s audits began due to the defendant’s (former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin) attempted seizure of management control, she held a press conference to cover it up, claiming “ILLIT copied NewJeans” and attacking ILLIT and the plaintiff (BELIFT LAB) with provocative expressions. Although this was packaged as an act for the public interest, it was in fact nothing more than the pursuit of private interests, and was an act of public opinion manipulation using her status as a star producer and the fandom of NewJeans, a top girl group.

“Due to the defendant’s statements, ILLIT was stigmatized as a plagiarizing group and suffered serious damage.”
Due to the defendant’s statements, rookie group ILLIT, which had only debuted a month prior, was stigmatized as a ‘plagiarizing girl group,’ suffering serious image damage and attacks from the public. They stated that having to prove that something is not true is itself a great ordeal.

“The ADOR injunction court also determined that the plagiarism claims were not sufficiently demonstrated.”
In past injunction proceedings filed by ADOR, whether BELIFT LAB copied NewJeans was also at issue, but at that time the Seoul Central District Court determined that the claims were difficult to sufficiently demonstrate, and the High Court also rejected NewJeans’ side’s claims.

“There are clear differences between the two groups across concept, music, choreography, and debut method.”
They argued that ILLIT and NewJeans are girl groups with completely different images and personalities, presenting the following differences:

• Concept: NewJeans has a Y2K, retro, natural mood without a separate worldview, while ILLIT has built a separate worldview based on a dreamy concept of princesses and magical girls.
• Music: NewJeans pursues hip-hop-based music produced by a single composition team, while ILLIT pursues a pop sound with multiple composers participating.
• Debut Method: NewJeans adhered to a mystique strategy and made a surprise debut with a music video, while ILLIT was selected through JTBC’s public TV audition program ‘R U Next?’ and was continuously exposed to the public through YouTube before debut.
• Choreography: NewJeans showcases freestyle-based choreography, while ILLIT is characterized by sharp synchronized group dances and storytelling-centered choreography.

“The defendant is intentionally ignoring the facts and promoting the ‘Min Hee-jin Created Everything Theory.’”
They criticized that the elements the defendant presented as evidence of plagiarism belong to the public domain of the industry, yet she is claiming the ‘Min Hee-jin Created Everything Theory’ as if she created everything first.

• Hanbok Photo Shoot: In response to the defendant’s claim that “there were no photo shoots taken formally at palaces wearing hanbok during holidays before,” they rebutted that many other idol groups have also shot similar photo shoots, and this is an unreasonable claim that didn’t even conduct basic fact-checking.
• Dance Moves: They expressed concern that the choreography moves the defendant claimed as plagiarism are public domain moves commonly used in K-pop, and recognizing exclusive rights to them would extremely limit free creative activities.
  • Hair Whip Move (NewJeans ‘Attention’)
    Used by numerous artists including Hearts2Hearts, Chungha, KISS OF LIFE, aespa, ITZY, IVE, etc.
  • Arm Spinning Move (NewJeans ‘Ditto’)
    Also showcased by KISS OF LIFE, aespa, BTS, G-Dragon, BLACKPINK’s Jennie, etc.
  • Sitting Move (NewJeans ‘Hype Boy’)
    Can also be found in choreography by ITZY, Hyolyn, etc.
• Other Elements: They pointed out that elements such as using COEX outdoor digital billboards, photos of members taken in front of the Eiffel Tower and posted on social media, and compositions with five members standing in a row cannot be the exclusive property of any specific person.

“The defendant’s evidence for plagiarism is flimsy, including submitting online community comments as evidence.”
They pointed out that the defendant (Min Hee-jin) submitted materials based on online community comments or intuitive feelings as evidence of plagiarism. This is an act of stigmatizing as ‘plagiarism’ without objective grounds, and they criticized this approach as suppressing competition and development in free artistic activities.

“She is distorting and exaggerating coincidental partial similarities as intentional copying.”
They argued that the photos, concept photos, and music videos the defendant presented as evidence of similarity between the two groups are materials that have been edited and distorted to appear similar. They criticized that any choreography can be manipulated to appear similar by capturing and editing momentary instances or individual moves, and this is a forced argument extracting only favorable parts.

“Some overlapping elements do not constitute copying.”
Citing the example of girl group GFRIEND, they mentioned that there are many elements that appear similar to NewJeans, such as music video aspect ratio transitions (16:9 → 4:3), full-shot filming while crossing a bridge, school uniform concept, photos of specific compositions, and hanbok photo shoots. They repeatedly emphasized that this is an example to prove that just as NewJeans did not plagiarize GFRIEND, ILLIT did not copy NewJeans just because some elements overlap.

“ILLIT’s unprecedented success proves it is not a copy.”
If ILLIT were a stale copy group as the defendant claims, it could not have achieved the results of breaking various records simultaneously with debut while receiving enthusiastic responses from K-pop fans domestically and internationally. They argued that this demonstrates fans have already verified the distinctiveness of the two groups.

“In conclusion, the defendant’s statements are clearly false.”
Despite bearing a high level of duty of care as an expert, the defendant attacked the plaintiff and ILLIT without verifying basic facts. They concluded that she specified false facts that ILLIT copied NewJeans while claiming elements belonging to the public domain as her own property.

“The defendant’s statements are legitimate expressions of opinion, and even if not opinions, they are the truth.”
As ADOR’s CEO and NewJeans’ producer, it is natural to express opinions about ILLIT’s similarities, and these statements are based on truth, not falsehood. They argued that this should be distinguished from statements of fact and is a legitimate expression of opinion.

“This case is a defamation and obstruction of business case, not a copyright infringement case.”
They criticized that the plaintiff (BELIFT LAB) is obscuring the essence of this case as if it were a copyright infringement lawsuit because the word ‘plagiarism’ was used. They emphasized, citing precedents and books (‘Theory of Copyright Infringement Determination’), that plagiarism is ‘an act with high moral culpability’ and is a different concept from copyright infringement.

“The reason the plaintiff is obsessed with choreography is because the similarities in other elements are even more obvious.”
They pointed out that BELIFT LAB’s emphasis only on choreography differentiation is tantamount to admitting that they cannot deny the imitation of other elements. They clarified that the defendant’s issue is about the comprehensive ‘production formula’ imitation encompassing branding and producing strategies, not individual choreography.

“The issue of ILLIT copying NewJeans was first raised by the public and industry before the defendant’s statements.”
Immediately after ILLIT’s reveal, reactions such as “I thought it was NewJeans” first emerged from online communities, media, industry experts, and overseas fans. The similarity was so obvious that the public left comments assuming “‘they must have gotten permission since they’re under the same HYBE umbrella,’” and this is evidence showing how the degree of imitation was perceived.

“The plaintiff extensively imitated by creating ILLIT’s project proposal by imitating NewJeans’ project proposal.”
They argued that similarities are confirmed in too many elements to be considered coincidental, presenting the following specific examples:

• Project Proposals: Despite a 3-year gap, they pointed out that the overall design, fonts, terminology, and development approach of the NewJeans and ILLIT project proposals are identically used.
• Hanbok Photo Shoot: Beyond simple photo shooting, the planning and execution method of ‘content self-produced and led by the agency rather than sponsored’ is identical, and specific expressions such as color palette, composition, and styling are also very similar.
• Debut Promotion: ILLIT copied exactly the ‘success formula’ of NewJeans debuting at a luxury brand event, and even made styling similar to elicit ‘it’s like NewJeans’ reactions.
• Album Design: They emphasized that ILLIT’s ‘Super Real Me’ and NewJeans’ ‘New Jeans’ albums are very similar in pixel font logos, CD design, etc.
• Choreography: They explained that the key choreography from NewJeans’ ‘Attention’ is included in ILLIT’s ‘My World,’ and the key choreography from ‘Ditto’ is included in ‘Magnetic.’

“The defendant’s issue-raising was a self-defensive measure against HYBE’s illegal audit.”
They attempted to resolve the issue internally by “sending emails twice,” but rather HYBE took issue with this and conducted an illegal audit, announcing it to the media. They argued that they had no choice but to make official statements and press conference remarks to reveal the actual cause of the audit and defend themselves. In particular, the fact that “only about 5 minutes of the over 2-hour press conference” addressed this position supports that this was a defensive expression of opinion, not an attack.

“(While the plaintiff demands damages) it would be fair to say that the defendant actually suffered the damage.”
The plaintiff’s imitation of NewJeans is the truth, and the defendant’s statements pointing this out are legitimate expressions of opinion and thus not illegal acts. Therefore, there is no liability for damages, and rather it is the defendant who suffered damage due to HYBE’s illegal audit, etc.

Fourth hearing date set for October 31, 2025

‘Rebuttal’ PowerPoint presentations of 15 minutes each are scheduled, with the order reversed from today—former CEO Min’s side will go first, followed by BELIFT LAB