BELIFT LAB v. Min Hee-jin: 4th Hearing

The 12th Civil Division of the Seoul Western District Court held the fourth hearing in the 2 billion KRW damages lawsuit filed by BELIFT LAB against Min Hee-jin, former CEO of ADOR.

The plaintiff first rejected the claim that HYBE’s audit of ADOR and Min Hee-jin—which Min Hee-jin cited as justification for her emergency press conference—was “illegal.” Arguing that the necessity, legitimacy, and evidentiary value of the audit had already been recognized in related civil and criminal case rulings, the plaintiff asserted that the logic of justifying the press conference by labeling the audit as “illegal” does not hold.

The plaintiff claimed that “Min Hee-jin had been planning a media campaign to maximize her personal financial interests since February of that same year,” suggesting that the urgency the defendant claimed was actually a prepackaged strategy she had already prepared.

The plaintiff argued that “Min Hee-jin intended to corner HYBE and reduce ADOR to an empty shell, then acquire HYBE’s 80% stake in ADOR at a bargain price.” To achieve this, the plaintiff claimed, she chose what the entertainment industry fears most—”damaging artist reputation”—and that the primary target was the newly debuted rookie group ILLIT.

BELIFT LAB cited the following as evidence:

• The necessity, legitimacy, and evidentiary value of the HYBE audit had been recognized in related cases
• Copyright and choreography experts did not agree with the claim that “ILLIT plagiarized NewJeans”
• The defendant, as an industry expert, arbitrarily edited and distorted anonymous public reactions and some media reports, and actively waged a media campaign despite knowing that the allegations did not constitute plagiarism under the law

The plaintiff presented the defendant’s KakaoTalk conversations as key evidence of a pre-planned media campaign.

Regarding how the KakaoTalk conversations were obtained, the plaintiff claimed that “the conversations were sent to HYBE’s business email and stored on the server, and an audit officer with legitimate access authority reviewed them.”

The plaintiff also pointed to the defendant’s repeated use of phrases like “it has to be casual conversation,” arguing that this was actually an attempt to disguise the conversations as personal chat out of concern for legal liability, and that this proves the conversations were not “purely personal.”

The plaintiff argued that Min Hee-jin set the narrative of “ILLIT plagiarized NewJeans” and carried out various activities accordingly.

• After ILLIT’s debut schedule was announced on February 27, 2024, ADOR Vice President Lee allegedly planned a sajaegi (chart manipulation) attack using music that had not yet been released
• On March 18, the day debut teasers were released, ADOR allegedly showed analysts a maliciously edited YouTube Shorts video disparaging ILLIT and induced them to write a HYBE “sell report” (a report encouraging stock sales)

The plaintiff referenced the HYBE internal document “Weekly Music Industry Report” that had been raised as an issue during a past National Assembly audit, claiming that “Min Hee-jin also instructed ADOR employees to create monitoring documents suggesting that other idol groups had copied NewJeans.” The plaintiff asserted that ILLIT, which had a weak fandom having just debuted, was made a “scapegoat,” and that the only evidence presented for plagiarism claims were online community posts, comments, and YouTube Shorts videos.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant instructed employees to emphasize messaging like “it would be difficult without Min Hee-jin,” mentioning three boy groups and instructing them to say these groups copied NewJeans. The defendant allegedly had monitoring documents created not only for HYBE artists but also for male and female idols from other agencies, with specific instructions such as “bundle the two leading 4th generation boy groups with ILLIT and say they copied NewJeans.”

The plaintiff also claimed that when instructing the creation of the so-called “Seven Sins of HYBE” document, Min Hee-jin selected LE SSERAFIM, a girl group that debuted before NewJeans, as “another scapegoat” to make NewJeans appear as victims.

The plaintiff compared Min Hee-jin’s position during the plagiarism controversy surrounding the NewJeans song “Bubble Gum” with the current case.

The plaintiff explained that while Min Hee-jin had previously argued that “similarity in a short one-phrase melody progression alone does not constitute plagiarism,” she led a media campaign using a plagiarism frame against ILLIT, causing significant damage. The plaintiff conveyed that ILLIT members had asked, “What did we do wrong to deserve this?” and that the CEO “could not bring herself to explain that the defendant had made young members scapegoats to maximize her economic interests.”

The plaintiff also claimed that negative reactions related to ILLIT increased 7.2 times after the defendant’s “copy” remarks at the press conference, resulting in actual damages including a sharp decline in album sales, canceled schedules, suspended advertising, and an increase in malicious posts and comments.

Min Hee-jin’s side argued that the press conference in question was a legitimate expression of opinion made in her capacity as ADOR’s CEO and NewJeans’ producer, at a time when similarities between ILLIT and NewJeans were being discussed across various aspects. The defense clearly stated that “even if the statements contain some factual elements, they cannot be considered false based on the evidence and are closer to the truth, so liability for defamation through false statements or tortious acts cannot be imposed.”

The defendant’s side repeatedly emphasized that this case is not a copyright lawsuit directly determining copyright infringement (whether plagiarism occurred), but rather a case of defamation through false statements and business interference. Nevertheless, the defense criticized BELIFT LAB for framing the case as if it were a trial about plagiarism and portraying even the press conference as a “pre-planned media campaign.”

Regarding the structure of the press conference, the defendant’s side explained that out of approximately 2 hours total, only about 5 minutes directly addressed the ILLIT-NewJeans plagiarism issue, and even that arose while answering a reporter’s question about the limitations of the multi-label system.

The defendant’s side argued that if any statement could be considered problematic, the responsible party should be “ADOR,” NewJeans’ agency, yet BELIFT LAB is focusing responsibility on Min Hee-jin personally rather than on ADOR. In other words, ADOR, as NewJeans’ agency, issued an official statement to protect the value of its artists and promote the healthy development of the music industry culture, and if the plaintiff wants to hold someone accountable, the target should be ADOR. The defense argued that seeking 2 billion KRW in damages from the defendant personally constitutes harassment of an individual.

The defendant’s side also strongly criticized the plaintiff for using ADOR’s official statement dated April 22, 2024 as grounds to hold the defendant personally responsible, while failing to properly prove that the defendant’s statements were false, instead indiscriminately bringing irrelevant matters into the trial to attack the defendant.

The defendant’s side argued that the ILLIT-NewJeans similarity controversy was first raised by the public, explaining that “the dominant and natural response from the public was that while watching NewJeans, no other girl group came to mind, but while watching ILLIT, NewJeans came to mind.”

The defendant’s side explained that “from March 25, 2024, when ILLIT’s debut album was released, there were already considerable critical reactions saying ‘too similar to NewJeans,’ and from March 25 to April 21, related terms for ILLIT included ‘plagiarism,’ ‘knockoff,’ ‘controversy,’ and ‘disappointing.’” In other words, the plagiarism controversy did not suddenly emerge because of the defendant’s statements; rather, her statements were closer to expressing pre-existing public reactions.

The defendant’s side also criticized the plaintiff for having worked to make NewJeans appear as a “plagiarizing group,” claiming that even in this lawsuit, the plaintiff is focused on defaming the defendant and NewJeans while avoiding the core issue (the similarity question).

Regarding the so-called “Everything Is Min Hee-jin’s Doing” frame raised by BELIFT LAB, the defendant’s side explained the purpose of her statements as follows:

“The defendant’s statements were intended to protect the business value achieved together by ADOR employees, NewJeans members, and collaborating staff whom she led as Executive Producer, and to criticize the unfair production practices of the plaintiff and HYBE behind them, who sought to easily imitate and profit from it.”

In other words, the essence of the statements was protecting NewJeans’ achievements and criticizing production practices, not groundlessly defaming the plaintiff or claiming all credit for Min Hee-jin personally.

The defendant’s side argued that similarities between ILLIT and NewJeans are evident in specific elements.

First, regarding the signature choreography of NewJeans’ song “Attention,” the defense explained that the creative combination of head, arm, and leg movements, body angles and postures, movement transitions, and timing became choreography that symbolizes NewJeans.

The defendant’s side also pointed out problems with the plaintiff’s argumentation regarding billboard advertisements. While the plaintiff speaks as if the defendant claimed similarities even in billboard advertisements between NewJeans and ILLIT, the defendant countered that she had never mentioned billboards. The defense indicated that if the plaintiff wants to discuss the defendant’s responsibility, arguments should be based on statements and materials that actually exist, while also claiming to have heard from an industry insider that the NewJeans billboard image was shown to the director in charge of ILLIT’s billboard image with a request to replicate it similarly.

Regarding the hanbok (traditional Korean clothing) photo shoots, the defendant’s side stated that “the plaintiff is distorting the defendant’s statements,” pointing out that although the defendant never said “all hanbok photos are mine” at the press conference, the plaintiff framed it as if the defendant claimed to have done hanbok shoots first. The defense explained that “the defendant’s statement was not intended that way; by comparing the photo shoots, she wanted to point out that the two groups are so similar that NewJeans’ image is becoming commodified,” claiming that “NewJeans and ILLIT’s photo shoots are nearly indistinguishable in overall color tone, hanbok and prop styling, background, composition, figure placement, gaze direction, and lighting.”

Third, the defense pointed out similarities in pre-debut exposure methods. The defendant’s side explained that the approach of appearing at fashion brand events after members were confirmed but before debut directly followed NewJeans’ method, to the point that many in the public said “I thought they were NewJeans.” As a result, while ILLIT began making a name for themselves, NewJeans experienced dilution and consumption of their image.

Fourth, the defendant’s side specifically pointed out that while the plaintiff claims “ILLIT’s final concept was confirmed on July 21, 2023, and they received NewJeans’ planning documents after that,” they have not submitted the “July planning documents” as evidence, and that the template and content are entirely different from the “September planning documents” that were the subject of plagiarism allegations. The defense also raised suspicions that NewJeans was referenced during ILLIT’s planning process, citing internal employee tips that NewJeans planning documents were referenced when creating ILLIT’s planning documents, and tips from HYBE affiliate employees that choreography would not be selected unless similar movements appeared after being shown reference videos.

Fifth, the defense pointed out the discrepancy between the timing of branding strategy confirmation and member confirmation. The defendant’s side argued that “while the plaintiff claims ILLIT’s branding strategy and concept were finalized on July 21, 2023, and they received NewJeans’ planning documents after that, the defense argues that date was when ILLIT members had not yet been confirmed.” Furthermore, “the plaintiff explained in a plagiarism rebuttal video posted on June 10, 2024 that ‘planning began on September 1, when members were confirmed,’ but now that planning document plagiarism seems factual, they’re saying July instead of September, yet the July planning documents have still not been submitted.” The defense characterized this as “changing their story,” contradicting their previous explanations.

The defendant’s side criticized the plaintiff for indiscriminately bringing in rulings from separate lawsuits unrelated to this case and the defendant’s private KakaoTalk conversations, using them as materials to personally attack the defendant. The defense argued that these materials are being used not only in the trial but also for swaying public opinion, and that consequently, the party seriously damaging the defendant’s reputation again is the plaintiff.

The defendant’s side maintained its position that the KakaoTalk conversations were illegally obtained and therefore lack evidentiary value, claiming that their private conversations were surveilled and leaked, becoming fodder for media bombardment even before the audit results were announced. In the subsequent oral arguments, the defendant’s side repeatedly argued that “the one bringing in rulings from separate lawsuits unrelated to the parties and issues, along with parts of private conversations, to use in the trial and for swaying public opinion is the plaintiff.”

The defendant’s side also reiterated that in the criminal case related to the so-called management rights seizure allegations, the Seoul Yongsan Police Station around July 2024 determined there was no intent or action to seize management rights and decided not to refer Min Hee-jin to prosecutors with a “no charges” (non-prosecution) opinion. The defense emphasized that “the defendant, seeing content similar to NewJeans being created across so many aspects that it was difficult to consider coincidental, simply raised issues to protect NewJeans’ achievements and criticize unfair production practices on behalf of ADOR, and had no intention to defame the plaintiff’s reputation.”

The defendant’s side viewed the plaintiff’s claims of ILLIT album’s modest performance, decline in sales one month after release, and loss of advertising opportunities as merely abstract expected profits, arguing they are difficult to consider concrete, actual damages. The defense also claimed that negative reactions such as “plagiarism” and “knockoff” related to ILLIT had existed since immediately after ILLIT’s activities began, arguing that damages liability based on the defendant’s statements cannot be recognized.

Finally, the defendant’s side strongly pointed out that while the plaintiff filed this case as defamation through false statements and business interference, they have failed to specifically identify and prove which parts of the defendant’s statements are “opinions” versus “facts,” and which among them are false.

The defendant’s side argued that “while the plaintiff claims ‘all of the defendant’s statements are false and caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and interference with business,’ they have failed to directly prove this, instead framing the defendant maliciously by bringing in rulings from separate cases and private conversations, thereby damaging the defendant’s reputation again.”