BELIFT LAB Releases Statement Denying Manager’s “Ignore Her” Remark

Hanni never took issue with ILLIT members in her statement. In fact, she clearly stated that they “exchanged greetings” when they first encountered each other. The essence of the issue Hanni raised was not about the first encounter, but about the “directive remark made by the manager” during their second encounter.

[🔗 NewJeans Emergency Live Broadcast Video 13:00~]
I experienced something not too long ago. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where we get our hair and makeup done. So a lot of other artists come and go, and a lot of other staff members come and go as well.

So one day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and some other group members and their manager passed by me. We exchanged greetings properly. But when they came back out a little later, the manager said “Ignore her.” Right in front of me. I could hear and see everything, and she said “Ignore her.”

I still don’t understand why I had to go through something like that, and I think it’s truly absurd.

However, BELIFT LAB, in its official statement, reduced Hanni’s complaint to a matter of “greetings” between artists. It appeared to be an attempt to shift the narrative by framing it as a matter of protecting rookie artists.

[BELIFT LAB Statement]
…We strongly demand that attempts to defame a rookie artist with baseless greeting controversies following groundless plagiarism claims cease immediately. …ILLIT members have never passed by NewJeans members without greeting them. …The footage shows ILLIT members bowing 90 degrees to NewJeans member Hanni, who was standing in front of them, as they got off the elevator and went in.

In an exclusive interview with NewJeans’ parents on October 9, 2024, they strongly criticized BELIFT LAB’s attempt.

[🔗 NewJeans Parent A Interview]
“BELIFT LAB claimed in their statement that it was ‘a greeting issue, which falls under goodwill between labels,’ but this distorts the essence of the problem. Hanni never complained about not being greeted. The issue is that another artist’s manager told those artists to ignore Hanni.”

[🔗 NewJeans Parent B Interview]
“CEO Kim Ju-young said she would issue a company-wide notice to all HYBE members, including artists, about greeting etiquette and manners to prevent such incidents from happening again. I don’t know how many times we have to say this, but we never raised an issue about ‘greetings.’ We raised an issue about HYBE’s unfair treatment of NewJeans.”

BELIFT LAB’s approach of emphasizing “greetings” between group members—something Hanni never took issue with—is an attempt to deflect from the real issue at hand: “HYBE’s label management and BELIFT LAB’s responsibility for managing its staff.” It appears to be a clear attempt to obscure the essence of the criticism by using rookie artists as a shield.

This is not fundamentally different from the logic BELIFT LAB CEO Kim Tae-ho used in “🔗 2024-06-10 BELIFT LAB’s Position on Plagiarism Claims” when he criticized former CEO Min Hee-jin’s actions as “tagging coordinates to manipulate public opinion and incite attacks against the other party.”

Hanni never once mentioned the other group’s actual name in her live broadcast or National Audit testimony. Yet BELIFT LAB’s statement made it seem as if a third party (online communities) had identified and mentioned ILLIT. In reality, however, it was HYBE, BELIFT LAB’s parent company, that first named the group through the media.

🔗 2024-09-12 Korea Economic Daily Article: NewJeans Joins the Fray With ‘Hardball Move’…Eve of Contract Termination Dispute Storm Excerpt
…HYBE stated that after reviewing 7-8 minutes of CCTV footage capturing the situation at the time, scenes of Hanni and ILLIT members greeting each other were captured, and no problematic remarks by the manager were found.

Through media reports on September 12, “HYBE’s side” was the first to identify the other group as “ILLIT.” However, BELIFT LAB’s subsequent statement appeared to deflect the responsibility onto online communities.

(※ Although the Ilgan Sports article did not mention BELIFT LAB or ILLIT, we are providing this explanation using actual names because online communities have identified and mentioned our artist.)

BELIFT LAB is a subsidiary label under HYBE. Nevertheless, it conceals the fact that its parent company first mentioned the name to the media and shifts the blame to online communities. If BELIFT LAB was uncomfortable with their artist being identified, the reasonable course of action would have been to protest to HYBE, who first mentioned the information to the media. However, the wording of the statement leaves room for misinterpretation that fandom communities were the ones who identified the other artist. This can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to distort the facts and shift the blame onto fandoms.

3-1. The “Single” Encounter

BELIFT LAB clearly stated through its official statement that there was only “a single” encounter on May 27.

[BELIFT LAB Statement]
“During this period, we confirmed a single encounter between ILLIT and NewJeans members on May 27… We obtained a copy of this footage.”

However, testimony from Hanni and her parents revealed that this “single” footage was merely an 8-second clip showing a brief greeting scene.

[🔗 Hanni’s National Audit Testimony]
“First of all, when I first brought this up, they said there was no evidence, but then they said there was CCTV footage… But they said they only have the scene of us greeting each other… They only kept an 8-second video of that exact part, and the footage from after that—not even an hour later, but just 5 or 10 minutes later—they said it’s gone.”

[🔗 NewJeans Parent A Interview]
“But absurdly, it wasn’t that all footage from the day of the incident was missing. They only kept and showed Hanni an 8-second video of her and the other artist’s members greeting each other. The important part is when the artist and manager came back out, but they made the ridiculous claim that footage from other times was all deleted. Why would only the unproblematic scene be kept? They were treating us like fools, and it was infuriating.”

3-2. The Other Times: ‘5 Minutes’ and ‘7-8 Minutes’

The problem is that BELIFT LAB and HYBE’s side mentioned other times that conflict with these “8 seconds.” In that very same statement, BELIFT LAB acknowledged that the two groups crossed paths for “about 5 minutes.”

[BELIFT LAB Statement]
“It was verified that the two groups crossed paths for only about five minutes on May 27 at the HYBE building, and that was the only encounter…”

If the official video evidence is only 8 seconds, where did the “about 5 minutes” come from? This unexplained time gap actually lends more credibility to Hanni’s testimony that the incident occurred 5-10 minutes later.

The confusion over time didn’t end there. In past media reports, yet another time—”7-8 minutes”—appeared.

[🔗 2024-09-12 Korea Economic Daily Article]
“…HYBE stated that after reviewing 7-8 minutes of CCTV footage capturing the situation at the time, scenes of Hanni and ILLIT members greeting each other were captured…”

“8 seconds,” “about 5 minutes,” and “7-8 minutes.” These inconsistent time references—all coming from HYBE’s side—raise suspicion that they either failed to accurately grasp the situation or exposed flaws while coordinating their stories to hide something.

3-3. Biased Investigation and Deceptive Explanation Suggesting an Attempted Cover-Up

The suspicion that these contradictions are not mere mistakes but a deliberate cover-up attempt becomes more concrete through the parents’ interviews.

First, the investigation was conducted by the party under suspicion (BELIFT LAB).

[🔗 NewJeans Parent A Interview]
“They showed us Slack messages with instructions… instructions to find the CCTV footage… Why is the ADOR board asking BELIFT LAB to find it? Our suspicions grew.” They continued, “Moreover, in these Slack messages between BELIFT LAB and the security team, when the security guard said ‘I found the scene of them greeting and passing by,’ BELIFT LAB responded ‘That’s a relief.’ ‘That’s a relief’? We didn’t understand the intent behind showing us this… This is essentially the same as asking the perpetrator to find the evidence.”

The attitude of searching for “relieving” footage rather than seeking the truth fundamentally calls into question the fairness of the investigation itself.

Second, the explanation for the missing footage is dubious.

[🔗 NewJeans Parent C Interview]
“When Hanni originally went to check the CCTV, the security guard told her, ‘There was a scene where they greeted going in and then passed without greeting when they came back out, but I didn’t keep that footage because I thought since they greeted going in, they wouldn’t need to greet coming out.’ The security guard reportedly couldn’t make eye contact with Hanni and was trembling while saying this.”

Contrary to the official explanation of “30-day retention period expired,” the on-site security guard gave a completely different explanation: “I didn’t keep it because I thought it wasn’t necessary.” Combined with the circumstances Hanni described—”the security guards couldn’t look me in the eye at the time, their hands were shaking”—it becomes hard to dismiss the suspicion that something is being hidden.

In conclusion, the explanations from BELIFT LAB and HYBE’s side contradict themselves on the critical time information. Multiple testimonies have also revealed that the fairness and transparency of the investigation were not guaranteed. Such selective evidence presentation, contradictory statements, and opaque investigation process can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to cover up something that happened during the second encounter. Ironically, their explanations are only adding more credibility to Hanni’s claims.

Hello. This is BELIFT LAB.
We would like to share BELIFT LAB’s position regarding the Ilgan Sports article published on October 7.
We strongly demand that attempts to defame a rookie artist with baseless greeting controversies following groundless plagiarism claims cease immediately.
BELIFT LAB’s protocol staff member (manager) for ILLIT never said “Ignore her” regarding a NewJeans member. ILLIT members have also never passed by NewJeans members without greeting them.

These facts were confirmed through CCTV review requested by BELIFT LAB and investigations of protocol staff members and artists on June 13, when NewJeans members’ parents raised the issue. It was verified that the two groups crossed paths for only about five minutes on May 27 at the HYBE building, and that was the only encounter. The footage shows ILLIT members bowing 90 degrees to NewJeans member Hanni, who was standing in front of them, as they got off the elevator and went in.

When we reviewed this footage together with then-CEO Min Hee-jin’s side on August 14, her side newly claimed that the failure to greet occurred after this scene and that there must be other footage. However, the security company explained that additional footage could not be obtained as the 30-day video retention period had already passed by then. Former CEO Min’s side is claiming that HYBE intentionally deleted the footage.

Our protocol staff members use honorifics and formal titles when speaking to artists, so the claim that they said “Ignore her” does not align with objective facts. The claim that “the video where they said ‘Ignore her’ was deleted” also cannot hold because CCTV does not record audio.

From the moment this issue was first raised, we have been asking all artists, including those from other labels, to always behave courteously, and we conducted the investigation in good faith. However, despite providing all requested explanations, new claims that cannot be verified are being raised, and as a result, an incident that never happened is now being addressed at the National Assembly’s National Audit. We suspect there may be other motives at play.

We have refrained from commenting on this issue to protect our staff member, who is inherently in a weaker position compared to famous artists. However, as attempts to solidify falsehoods as facts continue, the staff member is experiencing extreme feelings of injustice and emotional distress. It is the powerless protocol staff member who is actually being harassed by having a greeting issue—which falls under goodwill between labels—dragged into the public sphere with continuous claims that do not align with the facts.

Since this issue was raised, we have already sent two official responses and positions to ADOR regarding this matter in August and September. Following the request to prevent recurrence and after this matter became public when a NewJeans member mentioned it during a live broadcast, we demanded an apology from the member and ADOR as a label, but we have not received a response. We clearly state that if this issue continues to damage our company’s, artist’s, and staff member’s reputation and interfere with our work, we will pursue all available measures.

Immediately after receiving the written complaint, BELIFT LAB conducted face-to-face investigations with the artist and staff members and confirmed that the alleged remark was groundless. To verify the facts more clearly, we proactively requested HYBE to review the CCTV footage. Since the complaint did not specify an exact date, we reviewed footage from all available dates (May 14 to June 13) based on artist movements within the HYBE building. During this period, we confirmed a single encounter between ILLIT and NewJeans members on May 27. We verified a scene in which ILLIT members bowed 90 degrees to a NewJeans member as they encountered each other while moving from the elevator hall to the styling room, and we obtained a copy of this footage.

Based on the above investigation, we conveyed to ADOR’s new board members and NewJeans’ parents during an in-person meeting that BELIFT LAB staff members never engaged in the behavior or made the remarks claimed by the NewJeans member.

In response to continued complaints from the NewJeans side, ADOR and BELIFT LAB obtained consent from both groups’ artists and gathered together to re-review the situation from May 27. After reviewing the footage from May 27, ADOR’s side newly raised an additional issue claiming that the problematic situation occurred after that scene. Both sides inquired with the security company, but were told that it was impossible to re-review the footage from that date as the CCTV retention period had already expired.

(※ Although the Ilgan Sports article did not mention BELIFT LAB or ILLIT, we are providing this explanation using actual names because online communities have identified and mentioned our artist.)

-BELIFT LAB-