Source Music v. Min Hee-jin: 4th Hearing

The 12th Civil Division (Division B) of the Seoul Western District Court held the fourth hearing in the 500 million won damages lawsuit filed by Source Music against former CEO Min Hee-jin.

Source Music (the plaintiff) characterized the essence of this case as “a press conference held by the defendant (Min Hee-jin) with the intent to evade her own responsibility and wage a public relations battle during her dispute with HYBE,” arguing that in this process, the defendant distorted the facts and caused significant damage to an uninvolved third party—the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also pointed out that “whether the statements were false is a simple matter that can be determined by objective evidence,” yet the defendant has focused only on arguing that the plaintiff’s evidence should not be admitted, without presenting any evidence to establish the actual facts.

Regarding the defendant’s statements at the press conference—”All the current NewJeans trainees joined because they saw HYBE’s first girl group and Min Hee-jin,” and “Even though I cast them while Source Music was doing the management, they wouldn’t even show me the trainees because they were afraid the girls would fall into my hands. I selected them, I cast them, and I branded them”—the plaintiff argued that “all of this is false.”

The plaintiff claimed that the entity that cast the NewJeans members was “Source Music,” and that no promise of being the “first girl group to debut” was ever made to the members.

The plaintiff then explained the casting circumstances for each member:

• Minji: Directly cast by the plaintiff even before the defendant joined HYBE. (The plaintiff noted that the defendant does not appear to dispute this point.)
• Haerin: Street-cast in Anyang. There is video footage showing Haerin’s mother expressing gratitude to a Source Music employee.
• Hyein: The CEO of Source Music personally persuaded her parents to bring her on board.
• Danielle: Was a trainee at another agency, but was cast when her assigned manager transferred to the plaintiff’s company.
• Hanni: Selected through the “Plus Global Audition,” a joint project between the plaintiff and HYBE. The defendant never participated as a judge in this audition, which was held in 16 countries, and had minimal international recognition at the time.

The plaintiff also refuted the defendant’s claim that the NewJeans members joined believing in the promise of being “HYBE’s first girl group.”

As evidence, the plaintiff cited video footage from the time of trainee contract signing, in which Danielle’s mother requested the option to choose whether to stay with Source Music in the event that Danielle did not make the confirmed lineup or if the planned 2021 debut fell through. The plaintiff stated that similar inquiries were received from Hyein’s mother as well. Furthermore, the plaintiff emphasized that “the very notion of an agency promising a trainee ‘first debut’ is unheard of in the entertainment industry,” and that the defendant, as an industry professional, could not possibly be unaware of this.

To support these claims, Source Music stated that both the appellate court and the main trial court in the injunction proceedings between ADOR and NewJeans explicitly determined that “there is no documentation showing the defendant was directly involved in the selection process of the NewJeans members.”

The plaintiff also refuted the defendant’s statement at the press conference that upon being notified by HYBE that “a new group would debut first,” she responded with profanity, saying “Are you guys thugs? Why are you breaking your promise?”

The plaintiff argued: “Contrary to Source Music, which had originally tried to debut NewJeans first by June 2021, it was the defendant who said ‘I don’t care when LE SSERAFIM debuts, but I want to transfer NewJeans to the M (Min Hee-jin) Label and make them the first group under the M Label’—effectively poaching the members.”

Regarding the reason for the approximately 10-month debut delay, the plaintiff cited a report stating that “Min Hee-jin failed to meet operational deadlines and her uncooperative work attitude made the delay inevitable.” The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant insisted “my label’s establishment takes priority” and delayed work, and when So Sung-jin, former CEO of Source Music, pressed her, she replied via KakaoTalk: “My label’s establishment takes priority, and the resource allocation for the Source 21 team needs to be sorted out first.”

The plaintiff claimed they only later understood why the defendant had taken this stance after seeing her KakaoTalk conversations with a shaman.

• The plaintiff claimed the defendant told the shaman: “I won’t debut the girl group the way Source Music wants. I’m going to put my label’s name in the credits,” and “In April, I’ll finalize my label’s plans and push Source Music without any compromise according to my wishes.” This, they argued, aligns with her KakaoTalk message stating “my label’s establishment takes priority.”
• When the shaman suggested telling So Sung-jin to create a different girl group so the defendant could take over N Team (NewJeans’ predecessor) entirely, the defendant allegedly revealed her true intentions by saying “Can’t they just give me the Source Music girl group?”
• The plaintiff claimed the defendant agreed with the shaman’s suggestion that “if they’ll hand over N Team then fine, otherwise let’s break things off,” and when S Team (LE SSERAFIM) was formed, she used it as justification to scheme about debuting S Team first and then taking N Team, saying “I’ve started wanting to bring the girl group members to my label.”

Regarding the debut order, the plaintiff claimed they had tried to maintain the original schedule of N Team (2021) and S Team (Q1 2022), but meeting minutes from a new artist team launch direction meeting stated: “If coordination with Min Hee-jin proves difficult, S Team may need to debut first.”

Additionally, Slack reports from former HYBE CEO Park Ji-won also contained the defendant’s statement that she “wanted to transfer N Team to the M Label,” and the defendant herself told the shaman “I also wanted to go last—the protagonist goes last,” indicating she wanted NewJeans to debut after LE SSERAFIM. In conclusion, the plaintiff argued that “the circumstances surrounding NewJeans’ transfer and debut were the exact opposite of what the defendant claimed.”

The plaintiff also disputed the defendant’s claim at the press conference that “we were neglected when Source Music was doing the management.”

The plaintiff stated that they provided full support to the NewJeans members until just before they were transferred to the defendant’s label, even giving them the opportunity to appear in a BTS music video just two months before the transfer—an opportunity whose value as trainees is difficult to quantify.

The plaintiff asserted that “the defendant merely used the members for her own personal gain,” and while the defendant appears to have told the parents that “the debut was delayed so she created a personal label for N Team,” in reality “there is abundant objective evidence showing that the debut was indefinitely delayed due to the defendant’s self-serving non-cooperation.”

The plaintiff argued that “if the defendant had truly respected the NewJeans members, this situation would never have occurred,” and criticized her for “needing NewJeans as justification for her public relations battle.”

Finally, Source Music took issue with the defendant’s statements at the press conference that portrayed the plaintiff as “thugs who sold trainees.” The plaintiff pointed out that while the defendant has tried to justify her use of the word “thugs” by claiming it does not diminish social reputation, “she is simultaneously suing netizens who called her a ‘thug’ for damages—displaying contradictory behavior.”

The plaintiff stated that “an entertainment agency that discovers and nurtures trainees is built on image and trust,” and that by disparaging the plaintiff as “thugs,” the defendant “shook the very foundation of the plaintiff’s business, causing severe damage to trainees, staff, and artists alike.”

Source Music stated that as a result of this press conference, LE SSERAFIM was unjustly condemned as “the wicked stepsister who stole NewJeans’ debut opportunity,” and cited the members’ feelings as expressed at a concert.

“Last year, I was crying on the phone with a staff member in a hotel room. We talked about things like, ‘What do we do now? Do we even have a future? We don’t know what’s fake and what’s real anymore.’ We couldn’t see an inch ahead.”

The plaintiff concluded their oral arguments by requesting that “the court order the defendant to pay compensation commensurate with her responsibility.”

The defendant emphasized that in determining defamation, “the situation and context in which the statement was made are important,” and began explaining the background of the case.

After joining SM Entertainment in 2002, the defendant rose to the position of registered director by 2017 and was acclaimed as a talented creative director. In 2019, she joined HYBE as CBO at the recommendation of Chairman Bang Si-hyuk. At the time, Chairman Bang explained his plan to acquire Source Music and proposed creating an idol girl group using HYBE’s infrastructure (50%) and the defendant’s creativity (50%).

The defendant first established that from around July 2019, HYBE and Bang Si-hyuk publicly promoted that “the defendant would be in charge of directing HYBE’s first girl group.” This was conducted under the name “S21 Project” (S=Source Music, 21=2021), and since HYBE had never launched a female girl group at that time, it carried the significance of being “the first,” the defendant claimed.

As evidence for the N Team transfer process, the defendant cited a report written by the plaintiff (Source Music). The report stated: “Min Hee-jin has been involved since 2019, starting with the global audition, through the N Team concept and preparation, and N Team has been referred to as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, building anticipation.” The defendant explained that the NewJeans members also joined the project expecting to become “the first girl group” based on such media coverage, and that preparations for N Team’s debut proceeded accordingly.

The defendant argued: “The roles and responsibilities (R&R) between the plaintiff, Bang Si-hyuk, and the defendant were never properly established, and the debut was delayed because Bang Si-hyuk, who was supposed to provide the music concept, failed to deliver on time.”

Then, around June 2021, Bang Si-hyuk suddenly abandoned the plan to debut N Team first and notified them that S Team (which would recruit two members who had already debuted with another idol group) would debut first. The defendant claimed that “breaking the promise to debut N Team first is what caused the major issue.”

The defendant also explained that during this process, N Team was spun off into a separately established ADOR, and “as a result, LE SSERAFIM debuted first, followed by NewJeans, which achieved great success.”

In 2024, problems arose when BELIFT LAB debuted a girl group called “ILLIT.” The defendant claimed that plagiarism concerns—that “ILLIT’s concept was similar to NewJeans”—were first raised among users, critics, and journalists.

Representing the wishes of the members and parents who were most hurt by this issue, the defendant sent two internal whistleblowing emails to HYBE. The defendant believed this was “a legitimate raising of concerns,” but argued that “what came back in reaction was an audit framing her for attempting to seize management control.” The defendant also explained that after the April 16 internal report, she never disclosed the plagiarism issue externally.

Additionally, the defendant questioned how she could possibly “seize management control” of ADOR, a private company in which HYBE holds 80% and she holds 20%. As the audit findings were extensively reported in the media (over 1,700 articles at the time), the defendant was subjected to “witch hunt”-style criticism, and “she had no choice but to defend herself, which is why she held the press conference”—this was the context behind the statements in question, she explained.

In response to the plaintiff’s claim that “the plaintiff actually selected and contracted the members,” the defendant argued that “context must be considered.” The defendant claimed that “it makes no sense for the CBO of HYBE at the time to be doing street casting herself,” and explained that what she meant by “casting” was her role in “selecting who would become N Team members from the numerous candidates secured through global auditions and street casting, assigning their roles, and branding the new girl group.”

The defendant also stated that she branded the audition. She claimed that HYBE’s first girl group was created with some members selected through global auditions and others from casting, with the defendant, Bang Si-hyuk, and So Sung-jin (former CEO of Source Music) narrowing down candidates they liked to form the N Team members—not that she personally signed the contracts. As evidence, the defendant presented a comparison of HYBE audition posters before and after her branding, emphasizing the difference.

Regarding her statement that “(the plaintiff) broke their claim to debut NewJeans as HYBE’s first girl group and unilaterally announced LE SSERAFIM’s debut,” the defendant claimed this was “entirely consistent with the truth,” explaining that this can be confirmed through the “S21 Project” name and emails from parents stating they signed based on the offer to debut as “HYBE’s first girl group.” At the time, the plaintiff (Source Music) had no other girl group, and S Team was suddenly formed after March 2021—it was not a team that had been planned from the beginning. Therefore, “the members naturally expected to become the first girl group,” the defendant explained.

Regarding the claim that “NewJeans was neglected,” the defendant stated that “this was not the defendant’s statement but rather conveying what the parents said,” and that the debut being delayed for over six months with no communication is “an objective fact,” so the claim of neglect is effectively true.

Regarding the “thugs” remark, the defendant explained that “‘Are you guys thugs?’ and ‘You are thugs’ are different statements,” and that she did not definitively call anyone a “thug” at the press conference.

As for the statement about “selling trainees,” the defendant argued it was made in consideration of the actual situation where the plaintiff opposed the trainee transfer and demanded equity in ADOR, and was not intended to convey any other meaning.