Source Music v. Min Hee-jin: Closing Hearing
On the afternoon of December 19, Civil Division 12 of the Seoul Western District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Jin-young) held the fifth hearing in the 500 million won damages lawsuit filed by Source Music against former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin.
📌 Trial Overview
◦Case title: 500 million won damages lawsuit filed by plaintiff Source Music against defendant former CEO Min Hee-jin (related to defamation, obstruction of business, and insult)
◦Court: Civil Division 12 of the Seoul Western District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Jin-young)
◦Date: Afternoon of December 19, 2025 (5th hearing)
📌 Plaintiff Source Music’s Arguments
◦Premise that “press conference statements” are the central issue
–Plaintiff Source Music argued that “the issue in this case is the defendant’s statements at the press conference.”
–They also emphasized that defamation is not determined by a single specific phrase, stating that “when determining defamation, the content and intent of the statement must all be considered,” and that “contrary to the defendant’s claims, this is not determined by individual specific phrases.”
◦Position that it cannot be justified even if there was “another dispute” (third-party impact issue)
–Plaintiff Source Music argued that even if there was a dispute under the shareholders’ agreement between HYBE and the defendant, that itself cannot be the basis for justifying the press conference statements.
–In particular, they raised the issue of the press conference being conducted in a manner that could negatively affect third parties such as LE SSERAFIM, asking the court to consider whether “a malicious press conference aimed at trampling on another girl group that is young and has a bright future ahead” can be justified by “another dispute.”
◦Rebuttal to the defendant’s defense arguments (key points only)
–Plaintiff Source Music argued that the explanations claiming it was “only a small portion” or “merely conveying what others said” are irrelevant to whether defamation is established, stating that “it doesn’t make sense to say defamation is not established just because someone conveyed what they heard from others.”
◦Statements the plaintiff takes issue with
–The defendant’s claim that she “personally cast” the NewJeans members
–The defendant’s claim that the plaintiff “broke a promise” to debut NewJeans as HYBE’s first girl group
–The defendant’s claim that the plaintiff “neglected” the members and the group
📌 Defendant Min Hee-jin’s Arguments
1. Nature of the press conference: “Virtually the only means of defense available to an individual”
◦Emphasis on the purpose and necessity of the press conference
–Defendant Min Hee-jin’s side stated that “the statements the plaintiff takes issue with in this case are from a press conference that the defendant conducted for approximately 2 hours.”
–They further argued that the press conference was held “to rebut HYBE’s audit and unfair media play,” and it was “virtually the only means available to the defendant as an individual for defensive purposes.”
◦“Excerpting, patchworking, and distortion” framing
–Defendant Min Hee-jin’s side countered that the plaintiff is “excerpting only a small portion of the content from a press conference that lasted over 2 hours, patchworking and distorting it while ignoring the overall context” to frame it as defamation.
–They also pointed out that the plaintiff “went through a process of subtly changing their position multiple times before finally specifying” the branding and casting-related statements, arguing that this itself shows the plaintiff has failed to properly specify and is distorting the defendant’s statements.
–Furthermore, they argued it is unfair to consider as defamation “portions where the defendant conveyed statements from members or parents” or “portions where past statements were conveyed.”
2. Regarding the “thug” statement: “The overall context and circumstances must be comprehensively considered”
◦Nature of the expression and circumstances of use
–Regarding the insult issue, defendant Min Hee-jin’s side explained that “there is reason to examine the context in which the word ‘thug’ was used,” and that “it was not the first time someone was called a thug.”
–They also argued that “it was merely the use of somewhat exaggerated expression while explaining the process of conveying her own past statements as they were or explaining what actually happened.”
◦Denial of harm to social value and comparison
–Defendant Min Hee-jin’s side argued that “while it may be considered rude, it is not something that would undermine the plaintiff’s social value.”
–They also stated that the use of “thug” in a separate case cannot be compared on the same level as this case, arguing that unlike “a case where a hate commenter called someone a ‘thug’ without reason or context,” this case must be judged comprehensively considering “the circumstances and context in which it was used.”
3. Summary of key issues and presentation of “report”: “The most important evidence is the plaintiff’s own report”
◦Framing of the case’s essence and evidence
–Defendant Min Hee-jin’s side stated that “there are largely three statements at issue in this case,” and mentioned that “the essence of the case has been diluted” as the submitted evidence increased.
–They emphasized that “in fact, the most important evidence is the plaintiff’s own report, the Source Music trainee transfer-related report.”
◦Claims citing the report regarding “casting/branding”
–Defendant Min Hee-jin’s side argued that the report contains content stating “CBO Min Hee-jin has been involved in N Team (NewJeans) concept, strategy, training, and launch preparation starting from the global audition in 2019, and N Team was known as Min Hee-jin’s girl group,” claiming “there is no difference in substance.”
◦Claims regarding the “HYBE’s first girl group” promise and debut order
–Regarding the “promise to debut as HYBE’s first girl group” issue, defendant Min Hee-jin’s side argued that the same report contains “matters promised to trainee families at the time of initial S21 contract,” and that “the fact that it is recorded means that a promise was made.”
–They also argued that the plaintiff debuted LE SSERAFIM first and unilaterally notified that N Team would be sent to a new label that Min Hee-jin was creating, stating that it was “unilateral” and “it is true that LE SSERAFIM was released first.”
◦Claims regarding the basis for the “debut was nearly canceled” statement
–Defendant Min Hee-jin’s side argued that after the final evaluation, they were not notified of the evaluation results for an extended period, during which time the decision was made to debut LE SSERAFIM first, and considering that simultaneous debuts would be difficult, it was natural to feel that the debut might be canceled.
–In conclusion, defendant Min Hee-jin’s side added that “looking at the defendant’s statements, there is nothing that differs from the facts,” and concluded that considering “the context of the statements, why the press conference was held, and the arguments presented so far,” it is difficult to view this as defamation and there is no content that differs from the facts or damages the plaintiff’s reputation.
📌 Upcoming Schedule
◦January 16, 2026: Ruling scheduled
🔗 Reference Links