BELIFT LAB v. Min Hee-jin: 5th Hearing

The Seoul Western District Court Civil Division 12 held the fifth hearing for the 2 billion KRW damages lawsuit filed by BELIFT LAB against former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin at 4:00 PM on the 9th.

BELIFT LAB maintained the same arguments as in previous hearings. They claimed that Min Hee-jin utilized the plagiarism issue as a means to pressure HYBE, engaging in a planned public opinion campaign. They argued that the illegality was maximized by choosing a press conference, a method with strong propagation power. Presenting KakaoTalk conversations as key evidence, they cited a decrease in album orders, cancellation of advertisements, and the spread of malicious comments as specific examples of damages.

1. Basic Stance

Min Hee-jin’s side maintained that the remarks were merely an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact, and even if they were facts, they were not false. They asserted that Min never conclusively stated “ILLIT plagiarized NewJeans,” and that the remarks were made during a press conference responding to HYBE’s illegal audit, without any intent of slander or defamation.

2. Rebuttal to Plaintiff’s Claims

Min Hee-jin’s side pointed out that most of BELIFT LAB’s claims stop at expressions like ‘sought’, ‘intended’, or ‘tried to’, without evidence of actual execution. They rebutted that the KakaoTalk conversations were merely exchanges of words with no evidence of implementation, and regarding the claim of mobilizing parents for a public opinion war, they argued that the parents merely presented their opinions internally to HYBE.

3. Meaning of ‘Copy’

Min Hee-jin’s side explained that the term ‘copy’ differs from plagiarism. They argued that in English dictionaries, it means “trying to behave like someone else,” which corresponds to ‘imitate’ or ‘mimic’ in Korean.

4. Evidence of Specific Similarities

They claimed that there is no case other than ILLIT that has copied NewJeans’ achievements in various elements such as audition branding methods, key choreography points, the method of first official appearance, styling, pictorial tone and composition, and font and CD design. They added that although BELIFT LAB claims they did not reference the planning document, it was revealed that they had obtained it.

5. Essence of the Case

Min Hee-jin’s side emphasized two points to the court. First, that BELIFT LAB is treating a ‘defamation by false statement’ case as if it were a ‘copyright infringement case’, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. Second, that the situation is a witch hunt structure where multiple labels under HYBE are filing multi-billion won lawsuits to pressure the defendant from all directions.

1. Counterclaim Overview

Min Hee-jin filed a 5 billion KRW damages lawsuit (counterclaim) against BELIFT LAB and CEO Kim Tae-ho in November 2024. The claim includes 4 billion KRW in pecuniary damages, 500 million KRW in solatium (emotional distress), and 500 million KRW in other non-pecuniary damages.

2. Background of Counterclaim

Min Hee-jin stated, “CEO Kim Tae-ho and others spread numerous false facts through YouTube videos on June 10, 2024, and statements on October 7,” adding, “I hope for criminal punishment and liability for damages commensurate with the offense.”

3. Min Hee-jin’s Arguments for Counterclaim

The logic is that since ILLIT copied various achievements of NewJeans, the economic value of ADOR and NewJeans’ achievements declined, resulting in damages to Min Hee-jin’s personal incentives and economic interests. Min’s side stated, “We have proven the basic content through the counterclaim complaint.”

4. BELIFT LAB’s Rebuttal

BELIFT LAB raised the issue of plaintiff eligibility (standing), questioning why Min Hee-jin individually should be the plaintiff for damages to ADOR, citing a lack of arguments and evidence. They also pointed out the contradiction of claiming to speak as “ADOR CEO” in the principal suit while claiming “personal damages” in the counterclaim.