Hanni “Ignore Her” Incident
To manage the vast scale of the original Korean archive, we utilized state-of-the-art AI translation frameworks—including GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3.0 Pro.
This archive serves the public interest by ensuring the transparency and global accessibility of these critical records.
As a living document, this archive undergoes continuous updates and rigorous human oversight
to ensure the highest standards of factual accuracy and contextual integrity.
We actively encourage community participation. If you identify any mistranslations or have additional context to share,
please contact our team at [email protected] to help us refine and improve this record.
This content was adapted from English materials prepared by ⌜The Bunny Association⌟
https://sites.google.com/view/the-bunny-association/hybes-mistreatment-against-mhdhh/ignore-her-incident
2024-05-27: BELIFT LAB Manager’s ‘Ignore Her’ Remark Directed at Hanni
After her styling session, Hanni was waiting in the hallway near the shared hair and makeup area on the 4th floor of the HYBE building. There, she encountered a manager and three members of ILLIT on two separate occasions.
First Encounter
- Hanni greeted the ILLIT members and their manager as they arrived on the 4th floor.
- Hanni stated that the three members returned her greeting. This was confirmed by CCTV footage submitted as evidence by ADOR during the hearing on March 7, 2025, for the ‘Provisional Injunction to Preserve Agency Status and Prohibit the Execution of Advertising Contracts.’
“I had an experience recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where hair and makeup are done, so it’s a place where many artists and staff members pass through.”
“One day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and the other team’s members and their manager passed by. At that time, we greeted each other normally.”
Second Encounter
- About 5 to 10 minutes later, as the ILLIT members were leaving, Hanni heard the BELIFT LAB manager instruct the members to “ignore her,” speaking loudly enough for Hanni to hear.
- However, this specific interaction was not found in the CCTV footage submitted by ADOR.
“When they stepped back out a little later, their manager said, ‘Ignore her,’ right in front of me. I could see and hear everything, yet they said, ‘Ignore her.’”
“Even now, I don’t understand why I had to go through that. It still feels completely absurd to me.”
2024-06-01: Hanni reports the incident to CEO Min Hee-jin
Hanni directly reported the matter to ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin through KakaoTalk. These conversation logs were subsequently released by ADOR on March 7, 2025.
2024-06-13: Formal Complaint Filed with ADOR and HYBE HR
The mothers of the NewJeans members filed a formal report regarding the incident with ADOR management and HYBE’s HR department, requesting a thorough investigation.
Ms. A stated: “BELIFT LAB claimed in their statement that this was merely a ‘greeting issue’ within the spirit of mutual goodwill between labels, but this distorts the core of the matter. Hanni never raised an issue about someone not greeting her. The problem is that a manager from another label specifically instructed artists to ‘ignore’ her.”
She added: “We have consistently tried to resolve this internally. We have never publicly named a specific label or artist. It is BELIFT LAB that is tarnishing the reputation of NewJeans and their families by releasing statements containing false information.”
Ms. B noted: “On June 13, the parents sent an email to the ADOR Board of Directors to officially raise this issue. At that time, Kim Joo-young—then an ADOR director and now the current CEO—offered only a lukewarm response. Despite our repeated requests for photos of the BELIFT LAB managers to identify the individual involved, there was no response.”
Ms. C (another member’s mother) lamented: “Since we had not seen any footage prior to reviewing the CCTV on August 14, BELIFT LAB’s claim that ‘Min’s side’ changed their story after watching the video is an outright lie. Furthermore, using the term ‘Min’s side’ to frame this as an issue involving former CEO Min Hee-jin is another attempt to mislead people about the nature of this complaint.”
She continued with indignation: “Initially, they told us only those directly involved could view the CCTV, so only Hanni and one manager went to see it. So who exactly is ‘Min’s side’? No one else saw that footage. How can HYBE and BELIFT LAB release a statement saying ‘Min’s side’ changed their words? Their constant fabrication and shifting of narratives has reached a point that is genuinely frightening.”
Ms. D explained: “It is difficult to accept their claim that the relevant footage was deleted due to the expiration of the retention period—especially when they showed us a completely unrelated video two months after we first raised the issue. This response shows a lack of will to identify or solve the problem. As seen in CEO Kim Joo-young’s explanation email, the communication process was also opaque.”
Ms. D further pointed out: “BELIFT LAB referred to the facility that reviewed and deleted the CCTV as a ‘security company’ to make it sound like an outside contractor. However, the decision to review and delete that footage is clearly an internal organizational issue within HYBE. Attempting to cause confusion and distort even these minor details is not the right attitude.”
2024-06-19: First Meeting
According to the Full Text of BELIFT LAB’s Official Statement (Oct 7, 2024), a meeting was held involving ADOR’s new board members, the parents of NewJeans, and representatives from BELIFT LAB. During this meeting, BELIFT LAB maintained that “BELIFT LAB staff never engaged in the actions or made the remarks alleged by the NewJeans member.”
Analysis of BELIFT LAB’s Official Statement
1. Distortion of the Essence of Hanni’s Claim
Hanni did not target the ILLIT members in her remarks; rather, she clearly stated that they “exchanged greetings” during their first encounter.
The crux of the issue raised by Hanni is not the first meeting, but the “manager’s directive remark” that occurred during their second encounter.
🔗 Excerpt from NewJeans Emergency Live Broadcast (13:00~)
I had an experience recently. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where hair and makeup are done, so it’s a space where many other artists and staff members come and go.
So, one day, I was waiting alone in the hallway, and the other team members and their manager passed by me. We exchanged greetings well, but when they stepped back out a little later, their manager said ‘Ignore her’ right in front of me. I could hear and see everything, yet they said ‘Ignore her.’
Even now, when I think about why I had to go through such a thing, I don’t understand, and I think it’s really absurd.”
However, in their official statement, BELIFT LAB attempted to reduce Hanni’s grievance to a ‘greeting issue’ between artists and shift the narrative toward “protecting rookie artists.”
[From BELIFT LAB’s Official Statement]
“…We strongly demand an immediate end to attempts to defame rookie artists with baseless greeting controversies.”
“…ILLIT members have never passed by NewJeans members without greeting them.”
“…Video footage captured ILLIT members bowing 90 degrees to NewJeans member Hanni as they entered.”
In an exclusive interview on October 9, 2024, the mothers of the NewJeans members strongly criticized these attempts by BELIFT LAB.
[Interview with Ms. A, a NewJeans Mother(🔗 Link)]
“In their statement, BELIFT LAB claimed this was a ‘greeting issue in the realm of goodwill between labels,’ but this distorts the core of the problem. Hanni never raised an issue about not being greeted. The issue is that another artist’s manager told those artists to ignore Hanni.”[Interview with Ms. B, a NewJeans Mother(🔗 Link)]
“CEO Kim Joo-young said she would issue a notice to all of HYBE regarding greeting culture and manners between members. I don’t know how many times we have to say this, but we did not raise an issue about ‘greetings.’ We raised an issue regarding HYBE’s unfair treatment of NewJeans.”
BELIFT LAB’s focus on the “greeting” between members—which Hanni never contested—can be seen as a clear attempt to use rookie artists as a shield to deflect from the real issue: HYBE’s responsibility in label management and BELIFT LAB’s failure to manage its personnel. This is essentially the same logic used by BELIFT LAB CEO Kim Tae-ho on June 10, 2024, when he criticized CEO Min Hee-jin for “manipulating public opinion to target opponents.”
2. Responsibility for Specifying ‘ILLIT’ as the Opposing Group
Hanni never once specified the opposing group during her live broadcast or her testimony at the National Assembly audit. While BELIFT LAB claimed in their statement that ILLIT was identified by third parties (online communities), it is confirmed that HYBE, BELIFT LAB’s parent company, was the first to mention the group’s real name through the media.
From Hankyung Article, Sept 12, 2024: “NewJeans Joins the Battle… Eve of the Storm in Contract Dispute”
“…HYBE stated that after reviewing 7–8 minutes of CCTV footage, they found scenes of Hanni and ILLIT members exchanging greetings, and no problematic issues, such as the manager making problematic remarks, were found.”
Despite the fact that the “HYBE side” first identified the opposing group as “ILLIT” in media reports on September 12, BELIFT LAB’s subsequent statement maintained the stance of shifting accountability to the community.
(Note: While the Ilgan Sports article did not mention BELIFT LAB or ILLIT, we have used the real names here as the community has already specified them.)
Even though BELIFT LAB is a subsidiary of HYBE, they concealed the fact that their parent company first leaked the real names to the press and instead blamed the community.
If they were truly concerned about their artists being identified, it would have been logical to protest against HYBE.
Instead, their statement leaves room for misinterpretation that the fandom specified the artist, which can be interpreted as an intentional distortion of facts to shift blame onto fans.
3. Contradictions Regarding Encounter Frequency and Duration
3-1. In their official statement, BELIFT LAB clearly defined the encounter on May 27 as a “single instance.”
[From BELIFT LAB’s Statement]
“On the footage from May 27, we identified a single encounter between ILLIT and NewJeans… We obtained a copy of this footage.”
However, testimony from Hanni and her mothers revealed that this “single” video was merely an 8-second clip of a brief greeting.
[Hanni’s Testimony at the National Assembly Audit(🔗 Link)]
“When I first raised the issue, they said there was no evidence, but then they said there was CCTV… but they only had the greeting scene. They literally only kept about 8 seconds of footage from the beginning. They claimed there was no footage from 5 to 10 minutes later.”[Interview with Ms. A, a NewJeans Mother(🔗 Link)]
“It’s absurd that the footage from that day wasn’t entirely missing. They only showed about 8 seconds of Hanni and the other artists greeting each other. The critical moment is when the artists and manager were leaving, but they had the audacity to say all footage from other times was deleted. Do they take us for fools?”
3-2. Discrepancies: “5 Minutes” and “7–8 Minutes”
Crucially, BELIFT LAB and HYBE have mentioned other durations that conflict with this “8-second” clip. In the same statement, BELIFT LAB admitted the two groups crossed paths for “about five minutes.”
[From BELIFT LAB’s Statement]
“It was verified that the two groups crossed paths for only about five minutes on May 27 at the HYBE building.”
If the only preserved evidence is 8 seconds, the mention of “about 5 minutes” is not clearly explained. This unexplained “about 5 minutes” actually adds credibility to Hanni’s testimony that the problem occurred 5–10 minutes later.
Furthermore, in earlier media reports, another time of “7-8 minutes” appeared.
[From the Sept 12, 2024, Hankyung Article (🔗 Link)]
“…HYBE stated that as a result of checking the 7-8 minute CCTV footage capturing the situation at the time, scenes of Hanni and ILLIT members exchanging greetings were captured…”
The inconsistent information—‘8 seconds,’ ‘about 5 minutes,’ and ‘7-8 minutes’—is enough to raise suspicion that they failed to grasp the situation correctly or revealed loopholes while trying to coordinate their stories to hide something.
3-3. Biased Investigation and Deceptive Explanations Suggesting a Cover-up
The mothers’ interviews further amplify suspicions that these contradictions are intentional attempts to cover up the incident.
First, the investigation was led by the accused party (BELIFT LAB)
[Interview with Ms. A, a NewJeans Mother (🔗 Link)]
“They showed us Slack messages with instructions… I wondered why the ADOR board would ask BELIFT LAB to find the CCTV. My suspicions grew. Moreover, the Slack messages between BELIFT LAB and the security team showed that when the security personnel said, ‘I found the scene where they greeted each other,’ BELIFT LAB responded, ‘That’s a relief.’ Why say ‘That’s a relief’? I didn’t understand the intention behind showing us this. It’s essentially the same as asking the perpetrator to find the evidence.”
Second, the explanation for the missing footage is dubious.
[Interview with Ms. C, a NewJeans Mother (🔗 Link)]
“When Hanni was checking the CCTV, a security staff member told her: ‘There was a scene where they passed by without greeting each other after coming back out, but since you greeted each other when they went in, I thought a greeting wasn’t necessary on the way out, so I didn’t keep it.’ Hanni said the staff member couldn’t make eye contact and was trembling while saying this.”
Contrary to the official explanation of a “30-day storage period expiration,” the on-site security personnel provided a completely different reason: “I didn’t keep it because I didn’t think it was necessary.”
2024-06-25~2024-06-27: End of CCTV retention period
HYBE claimed that footage had been automatically deleted due to technical limitations after its standard 30-day retention period expired.
NewJeans’ parents later criticised HYBE for failing to preserve critical evidence despite being notified well within the retention period.
Ms. D explained: “It is difficult to accept the explanation that the rest of the footage was deleted due to the expiration of the retention period—especially when they showed us a completely unrelated video that didn’t match the described situation two months after we first raised the issue. This response shows a lack of will to identify or solve the problem. As reflected in the explanation email sent by CEO Kim Joo-young, the communication process was also entirely opaque.”
On the same day, NewJeans’ parents emailed HYBE to follow up on the incident with no avail.
Ms. B stated: “When I checked the emails we sent regarding this matter, I found that we had been requesting action and communicating almost every week from June 13 through September—specifically on June 13, June 25, July 10, and July 20. We consistently reached out to plead for a proper resolution.”
2024-07-10, 2024-07-20: Follow-up attempts from parents
NewJeans’ parents expressed their frustration over the lack of progress in resolving the issue and repeatedly sent emails to HYBE urging for a resolution.
These follow-up actions by NewJeans’ parents continued until September.
Ms. B explained, “When I checked the emails we sent to see how much we had requested regarding this issue, we communicated, asked, and requested through emails and other means almost every week from June 13 to June 25, July 10, July 20, and so on until September.”
2024-08-14: Second Meeting
Hanni viewed the CCTV footage for the first time in a meeting with a manager, immediately following the conclusion of her activities in Japan.
“…Initially, we were told that only the individual involved could check the CCTV, so Hanni and one manager went together to view the footage…”
Ms. C said, “Hanni was incredibly busy at that time preparing for the Tokyo Dome fan meeting and her activities in Japan,” and added, “So she went to check the footage once those Japanese activities had somewhat wound down.”
BELIFT LAB presented an 8-second clip showing the ILLIT members entering and greeting while Danielle and an ADOR manager were present; however, they did not present the footage of the encounter upon leaving, which is when the incident actually occurred.
🔗 2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit: Environment and Labor Committee (TRANSCRIPT ARCHIVE)
“Initially, when I first mentioned this, I was told there was no evidence. Later, they said there was CCTV, but that it only contained the scene of us greeting each other. I had clearly explained the situation, so I didn’t understand why only the initial greeting scene existed. I said, ‘I will check it myself,’ and I did check the CCTV. But just as they said, they only kept a video of about 8 seconds from the beginning. They claimed there was no footage from the scene afterward—which wasn’t even an hour later, but just 5 to 10 minutes later.”
“During that meeting, I met with only two people: the CCTV manager and the head of security. I kept asking them why the rest was missing. Because we would have clearly explained [what we were looking for]. However, throughout the meeting, the reasons for why it was missing kept changing. They kept changing their story and made verbal mistakes. They said, ‘We deleted the video,’ and at the time, because the CEO changed [things] like that without a word, I felt uneasy about everything.”
She added, “But absurdly, it wasn’t that all the footage from the date of the incident was missing. They showed Hanni only an 8-second clip of her and the other artists’ members greeting each other. The critical moment is when the artist and manager were leaving, but they said the footage from other times had all been deleted. Why would they leave only the scene that isn’t problematic? It felt like they were treating us like fools, and it was offensive.”
“From the very first time we raised the issue, we clearly explained that this happened while Hanni was alone. Despite this, the video HYBE showed Hanni on August 14 was a scene where she was with an ADOR manager and Danielle.”
During the meeting, the security personnel appeared nervous, making verbal slips and failing to make eye contact. Hanni recorded the conversation to ensure she did not miss any details of the meeting.
🔗 2024-10-15 National Assembly Audit: Environment and Labor Committee (TRANSCRIPT ARCHIVE)
“Since I am a foreigner—I am Vietnamese-Australian—I cannot understand 100% of Korean no matter how hard I try. So, I recorded the meeting to not miss any of the content of such an important meeting. Therefore, I have evidence that they are lying.”
“Initially, when Hanni was checking the CCTV, a security staff member told her: ‘There was a scene where they passed by without greeting each other after coming back out, but since you greeted each other when they went in, I thought a greeting wasn’t necessary on the way out, so I didn’t keep it.’ It is said that the security staff member was trembling and unable to make eye contact while telling Hanni that story.”
2024-08-27: Replacement of ADOR CEO
ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin was dismissed, and HYBE Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) Kim Joo-young was appointed to the position.
Min Hee-jin protested this decision, claiming it was a violation of the shareholder agreement that guaranteed her a five-year term.
🔗 ADOR: “CEO Replacement, Min Hee-jin Steps Down”… What’s Next? [Official Statement] (Full Text)
Announcement from ADOR.
We held a board meeting on the 27th and appointed Kim Joo-young, an ADOR internal director, as the new CEO.
New CEO Kim Joo-young, an HR expert with experience in various industries, will take on the role of stabilizing the organization and overseeing internal reorganization at ADOR.
Former CEO Min Hee-jin will step down from the CEO position but will remain as an internal director at ADOR. She will also continue to oversee the production work for NewJeans.
Along with this change, ADOR’s internal structure will separate production and management. While this has been a consistent multi-label operational principle applied to all other labels, ADOR has been an exception where the CEO oversaw both production and management.
With this appointment and organizational reorganization, ADOR plans to provide full support for the growth and even greater success of NewJeans.
Thank you.
2024-09-11: NewJeans’ Emergency Live Broadcast
The members of NewJeans held an emergency live broadcast to publicly disclose the unfair treatment they have received from HYBE.
Hanni revealed the ‘ignore her’ incident for the first time, although she did not specify the particular label or group involved in the incident.
🔗 September 11, 2024: NewJeans Emergency Live Broadcast Full Transcript (TRANSCRIPT ARCHIVE)
“I did speak to the new CEO about it, but seeing how she tried to dismiss it by saying there was ‘no evidence and it’s too late,’ I felt that we no longer have anyone to protect us. I felt that they truly don’t have a heart that cares for us. Even though I spoke so honestly, I felt like I was turned into a liar in an instant.”
“Previously, CEO Min Hee-jin fought hard for us. The new people say on the surface that they will help us, but for months now, they have only been making excuses and saying it’s an issue that cannot be resolved.”
“Even though it is something that I personally went through and experienced, they are trying to shift the blame onto me, so I am worried and scared about what might happen next.”
2024-09-12: First Mention of ‘ILLIT’ in HYBE’s Stance via the Hankyung Report
HYBE responded to NewJeans’ emergency live broadcast by stating their position through an article in Hankyung (Korea Economic Daily). Through HYBE’s stance in the article, the identity of the opposing group was revealed to be “ILLIT” for the first time.
“NewJeans member Hanni detailed the situation during a YouTube live broadcast on the evening of the 11th, stating that a ‘manager of a HYBE-affiliated artist told the members to ignore (her).’ It appears she was referring to the situation that occurred with an ILLIT manager.”
“HYBE stated that as a result of checking the 7-8 minute CCTV footage capturing the situation at the time, scenes of Hanni and ILLIT members exchanging greetings were captured, and no problematic issues, such as the manager making the problematic remark, were found.”
While HYBE claimed to have reviewed 7–8 minutes of CCTV footage, they later claimed that the CCTV footage had expired or been deleted. Subsequently, they only provided an 8-second clip, captured at an irrelevant point in time, to the court and the public.
Furthermore, despite Hanni’s efforts to protect ‘ILLIT’ during the emergency live broadcast, HYBE identified the opposing group as ‘ILLIT’ through this article.
2024-09-12: Anonymous Bunnies Request Investigation into Workplace Bullying Allegations
An anonymous fan (Bunnies) filed a complaint through the e-People portal (Kukmin Shinmungo) to the Ministry of Employment and Labor. The complaint strongly urged the authorities to “investigate the disclosure of workplace bullying within HYBE and ensure that those responsible are strictly punished if illegal acts are discovered.”
[Related Reports]
🔗 [SC Issue] Aftershocks of NewJeans’ ‘HYBE Bullying’ Disclosure: Report to the Ministry of Labor to “Punish the Perpetrator”
🔗 Escalating Fallout from NewJeans’ Disclosure of Being Ignored: Report to the Ministry of Labor to “Investigate Bullying Within HYBE” [Summary]
🔗 “Ignore Her”—Bullying to NewJeans Hanni’s Face? Report to the Ministry of Labor to “Punish the Perpetrator”
2024-09-23: Meeting with ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young
Following the request made during their live broadcast in September, the NewJeans members and their parents held a meeting with ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young. During this meeting, they once again demanded a clear investigation into the “ignore her” incident and the establishment of accountability.
The mother of Ms. B stated, “On the 23rd of last month (September), ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young asked to meet with the NewJeans members alone. However, I felt too uneasy to send the children by themselves, so the parents went along as well. At that meeting, we raised our objections regarding this issue once again.”
When Hanni re-explained the situation during the meeting on the 23rd, CEO Kim Joo-young exhibited behavior that was difficult to understand by common standards. She gave a baffling response, saying things like, “Am I not looking you straight in the eye right now?” and took an overly emotional stance, suddenly bursting into tears.
The mother of Ms. A recounted the situation: “During the meeting on the 23rd, Hanni explained the situation to CEO Kim Joo-young, saying, ‘On the day I visited the security team to check the CCTV myself—since I was told only the victim could verify it—the security personnel couldn’t meet my eyes and their hands were trembling.’ In response, CEO Kim Joo-young said to Hanni, ‘Am I not looking you straight in the eye right now?’ It was such a baffling response that we were stunned.”
“During the meeting on the 23rd, CEO Kim Joo-young suddenly started crying in front of the NewJeans members while she spoke. It was very disconcerting. To see a CEO—someone they aren’t even close with yet—show such an emotional display in a meeting meant to discuss various serious issues made me wonder if she was trying to make the members, who don’t have much social experience, feel guilty. This was despite the fact that the meeting was held to discuss the harm we had suffered. In fact, one member cried along with her, saying, ‘Why are you making us out to be the bad people?’ That’s why the mothers told them, ‘You’re at an age where you should be in school; we’re sorry that as parents, we’ve put you through this.’”
2024-10-07: Exclusive Interview with NewJeans’ Mothers (Ilgan Sports)
Through an exclusive interview with Ilgan Sports, the parents of NewJeans strongly criticized HYBE, stating that the company “intentionally concealed evidence (CCTV), conducted a poor investigation, and displayed an attitude of shifting responsibility onto the members, who are the victims.”
1. Allegations of Intentional Deletion of CCTV Footage (Crucial Evidence)
The point the NewJeans’ parents raised most strongly is that the CCTV footage, which would serve as core evidence of the incident, disappeared in an irrational manner.
- Deletion of Only the Problematic Scenes
While an 8-second clip of Hanni greeting members of another group remains, the crucial scene immediately following, where the manager of that group said “Ignore her,” has been deleted.
“How can they say that only the video of Hanni greeting the members of the other group remains, while the video that would have contained the problematic ‘Ignore her’ remark was deleted?”
“But absurdly, it wasn’t that all the footage from the date of the incident was missing. They showed Hanni only an 8-second clip of her and the other artists’ members greeting each other. The critical moment is when the artist and manager were leaving, but they said the footage from other times had all been deleted. Why would they leave only the scene that isn’t problematic? It felt like they were treating us like fools, and it was offensive.” - HYBE’s Irrational Explanations
- “Automatic deletion after 30 days” claim
Despite the issue being raised immediately after the incident, the parents were given the irrelevant answer that “CCTV is set to be deleted after 30 days.” - “Impossible to recover” claim
When a request was made to recover the deleted footage, the only response was that it was “technically difficult.” - “Person in charge has resigned” claim
When the parents asked who deleted the footage, they were told, “The person who deleted it has resigned, so the reason is unknown.” The HYBE security team blamed their superiors for the instructions and confirmation, while the superiors blamed the departed employee.
- “Automatic deletion after 30 days” claim
2. Flawed Investigation Process Lacking Fairness
The parents criticized the investigation process itself as being highly unfair and merely a formality.
- Requesting the Investigation from the Accused Party
Despite this being an issue between labels under HYBE, the ADOR board asked BELIFT LAB—to which the accused party belongs—to check the CCTV footage.
“This is essentially the same as asking the perpetrator to find the evidence.” - Suspicious Slack Conversation Content
In a Slack conversation between BELIFT LAB and the security team presented to the parents by ADOR, when a security personnel reported, ‘I found the scene where they greeted each other,’ BELIFT LAB responded, ‘That’s a relief.’
““Susppicions grew over why the ADOR board asked BELIFT LAB to find the footage instead of ADOR requesting the security team directly or having HYBE’s workplace bullying department handle it,” they explained. “Moreover, in the Slack messages between BELIFT LAB and the security team, when the security personnel said, ‘I found the scene where they greeted each other,’ BELIFT LAB responded, ‘That’s a relief.’ I don’t understand the intention behind showing us a message that says ‘That’s a relief.’”
Ms. A’s mother lamented: “This is essentially the same as asking the perpetrator to find the evidence. In the end, they say they deleted the scene that would have contained the ‘Ignore her’ remark, and when we asked to at least try forensics to restore it, they said it was impossible due to technical issues. I wondered how on earth we were supposed to believe any of this.”
3. Improper Response and Secondary Victimization by CEO Kim Joo-young
The parents argued that CEO Kim Joo-young’s attitude during her meeting with the members was highly inappropriate and essentially constituted secondary victimization (secondary harm).
- Evasive and Irrelevant Remarks
When Hanni explained the strange behavior of the security personnel, CEO Kim Joo-young baffled everyone by responding with something like, “Am I not looking you straight in the eye right now?”
“During the meeting on the 23rd, Hanni explained the situation to CEO Kim Joo-young, saying, ‘On the day I visited the security team to check the CCTV myself—since I was told only the victim could verify it—the security personnel couldn’t meet my eyes and their hands were trembling.’ In response, CEO Kim Joo-young said to Hanni, ‘Am I not looking you straight in the eye right now?’ It was such a baffling response that we were stunned.” - Shifting Responsibility to the Victim
CEO Kim Joo-young had previously told Hanni, “If something like this happens, you should have spoken up sooner; a month has already passed and the footage is deleted,” making Hanni feel as if she herself were at fault. - Pressure through Emotional Displays
During the meeting on September 23, CEO Kim Joo-young suddenly burst into tears in front of the members. One mother stated, “I wondered if showing such an emotional display to members with little social experience was an attempt to make the children feel guilty.” She also revealed that one member cried along with her, saying, “Why are you making us out to be the bad people?”
“During the meeting on the 23rd, CEO Kim Joo-young suddenly started crying in front of the NewJeans members while she spoke. It was very disconcerting. To see a CEO—someone they aren’t even close with yet—show such an emotional display in a meeting meant to discuss various serious issues made me wonder if she was trying to make the members, who don’t have much social experience, feel guilty. This was despite the fact that the meeting was held to discuss the harm we had suffered. In fact, one member cried along with her, saying, ‘Why are you making us out to be the bad people?’ That’s why the mothers told them, ‘You’re at an age where you should be in school; we’re sorry that as parents, we’ve put you through this.’”
4. Passive Stance Toward the Leak of Trainee Footage
The parents pointed out that the company’s response was highly inadequate regarding not only Hanni’s bullying issue but also the unauthorized leak of footage from their trainee days.
- Shifting Responsibility to Fans
One mother raised the issue of trainee footage being leaked to an internet media outlet. Two days later, CEO Kim Joo-young reportedly replied, “Since (NewJeans) fans have reported that outlet and Source Music, we could consider waiting for those results.”
“The email stated that there are no criminal penalty provisions for the infringement of portrait rights, and that suing Source Music could backfire if they are cleared of charges. It also said we could consider waiting for the results of the fans’ reports. I don’t understand what it means to wait for the fans’ results while claiming there are no criminal penalty provisions.” - Focusing Only on the Negative Aspects of Litigation
Furthermore, ADOR displayed a passive attitude toward legal action, mentioning that public opinion could be negative if the members filed a lawsuit directly and that their chances of winning might not be high without objective data regarding the leak.
“”In the explanation email CEO Kim Joo-young sent us, it said that the NewJeans members could file a civil lawsuit for the infringement of portrait rights, but we must consider the possibility that the procedure itself against a media outlet could be perceived negatively. It also noted concerns that the chances of winning might not be high without objective data on the leak. It mentioned that ADOR sent an official letter to Source Music and the media outlet in August but received no response.”
2024-10-07: Release of BELIFT LAB’s Official Statement
On the same day the exclusive interview with NewJeans’ parents was published in Ilgan Sports, BELIFT LAB released an official statement in response.
The most critical point to note in BELIFT LAB’s statement is that it intentionally distorts the essence of the issue raised by Hanni.
1. Distortion of the Essence of Hanni’s Claim
Hanni clearly stated in her remarks that she did not take issue with the ILLIT members themselves, but rather that “we exchanged greetings” when they first met. The essence of the problem Hanni raised was not the first meeting, but the “manager’s directive remark” that occurred during the second encounter.
🔗 NewJeans Emergency Live Stream Video 13:00~
I experienced something a while ago. The 4th floor of the HYBE building is where hair and makeup are done. So, it’s a space where many other artists and other staff members also come and go.
So one day, I was waiting alone in the corridor, and members of another team and their manager passed by me. So we exchanged greetings properly, but when they came out again a little later, that manager said ‘Ignore her.’ Right in front of me. I could hear and see everything, but they said ‘Ignore her.’
But even thinking about it now, I don’t understand why I have to go through something like that, and I think it’s truly absurd.
However, in its official statement, BELIFT LAB attempted to reduce Hanni’s complaint to the issue of ‘whether greetings were exchanged’ between artists and shift the focus to the frame of protecting rookie artists.
[BELIFT LAB Statement]
…We strongly demand an immediate halt to attempts to disparage our rookie artist with baseless controversies regarding greetings.
…The ILLIT members also never passed by NewJeans members without greeting them.
…The footage captured the ILLIT members getting off the elevator and bowing 90 degrees to NewJeans member Hanni, who was standing in front of them, as they entered.
Later, in an exclusive interview with NewJeans’ parents on October 9, 2024, they strongly pointed out BELIFT LAB’s attempt as described above.
[Interview with NewJeans Parent A(🔗 Link)]
“BELIFT LAB claimed in their statement that it is an ‘issue of greetings, which belongs to the realm of goodwill between labels,’ but this is misleading the essence of this issue,” she said. “Hanni never raised an issue about them not greeting her. The problem is that the manager of another artist told those artists to ignore Hanni.”[Interview with NewJeans Parent B(🔗 Link)]
“CEO Kim Ju-young said she would announce notices about greeting culture and manners among HYBE members, including artists, throughout HYBE to prevent such incidents from happening again, but I don’t know how many times we have to say this: we did not raise an issue about ‘greetings.’ We raised an issue about HYBE’s unfair treatment of NewJeans.”
As such, BELIFT LAB’s move to emphasize ‘greetings’ between group members—which Hanni did not take issue with—can be seen as a clear attempt to blur the essence of the criticism by using rookie artists as a shield, diverting from the issue of ‘HYBE’s label management and BELIFT LAB’s responsibility for staff management,’ which should rightfully be raised.
This is fundamentally no different from the logic used by BELIFT LAB CEO Kim Tae-ho in 🔗 ‘BELIFT LAB’s Position on Plagiarism Claims on 2024-06-10, where he criticized CEO Min Hee-jin’s actions as ‘coordinate-targeting (directing attacks) to mobilize public opinion to attack the opponent.
2. The Subject Specifying the Opposing Group ‘ILLIT’
Hanni never once mentioned the real name of the opposing group in her live stream or National Assembly testimony. However, BELIFT LAB explained in its statement as if ILLIT was specified and mentioned by a third party (community), but it is confirmed that HYBE, BELIFT LAB’s parent company, was actually the first to mention the real name through the media.
2024-09-12 Hankyung [NewJeans Joins the Fray ‘Super Strong Measure’… Termination Dispute ‘Calm Before the Storm’]Article Excerpt
…The HYBE side stated that after checking the 7-8 minute CCTV footage capturing the situation at the time, scenes of Hanni and ILLIT members exchanging greetings were captured, and no grounds for problems, such as the manager making the remark in question, were found.
As such, despite the ‘HYBE side’ first specifying the opposing group as ‘ILLIT’ through media reports on September 12, the subsequent statement released by BELIFT LAB shows an attitude of seemingly shifting that responsibility to the community.
(※ Although the Ilgan Sports article did not mention BELIFT LAB and ILLIT, we explained using real names as our artists are being specified and mentioned in online communities.)
BELIFT LAB is a subsidiary label of HYBE. Nevertheless, they are shifting the responsibility to the community while hiding the fact that their parent company mentioned the real name to the media first. If they were uncomfortable with their artist being specified, it would be reasonable to protest to their parent company, HYBE, who mentioned the information to the media first. However, the expression in the statement leaves room for misinterpretation that the fandom community specified the opposing artist, and this can be interpreted as an attempt to intentionally distort facts and shift responsibility to the fandom.
3. Contradictions Regarding the Frequency and Time of Encounter
3-1. BELIFT LAB clearly defined through its official statement that the encounter on May 27 happened ‘only once.’
[BELIFT LAB Statement]
On the footage from May 27, we identified a single encounter between ILLIT and NewJeans… We obtained a copy of this footage.
However, testimonies from Hanni and her parents reveal that this ‘single’ video was merely a short greeting scene lasting only ‘8 seconds.’
[Hanni’s National Assembly Testimony (🔗 Link)]
“First, when I first told them about it, they said there was no evidence, but they said there was CCTV, but they said there was only the scene of greeting… But literally as they said, they only kept the video of about 8 seconds in the front, and they said there was no scene after that, even though it wasn’t like an hour later, but 5 or 10 minutes later.”[Interview with NewJeans Parent A (🔗 Link)]
“But absurdly, it wasn’t that all the footage from the date of the incident was missing. They showed us only about 8 seconds of footage where Hanni and the other artist members were greeting each other, and then they said the absurd thing that the footage from the other time slot—where the artist and manager come out, which is the crucial part—was all deleted. Why would they keep only the scene that isn’t problematic? It was unpleasant, as if they were taking us for fools.”
3-2. Another Time Frame: ‘5 Minutes’ and ‘7~8 Minutes’
The problem is that BELIFT LAB and the HYBE side themselves mentioned other time frames that conflict with these ‘8 seconds.’ In that very statement, BELIFT LAB admitted 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.
If the official video evidence is only 8 seconds, where did the time of ‘about 5 minutes’ come from? This unexplained gap in time paradoxically adds credibility to Hanni’s testimony that the problem occurred 5 to 10 minutes later.
The confusion about time does not stop here. Another time frame of ‘7~8 minutes’ appears in past media reports.
[2024-09-12 Hankyung Article (🔗 Link)]
“…The HYBE side stated that after checking the 7-8 minute CCTV footage capturing the situation at the time, scenes of Hanni and ILLIT members exchanging greetings were captured…”
‘8 seconds,’ ‘about 5 minutes,’ ‘7~8 minutes.’ These inconsistent pieces of time information, all coming from the HYBE side, are sufficient to raise suspicions that they either did not grasp the situation accurately or revealed flaws in the process of coordinating their stories to hide something.
3-3. Biased Investigation and Deceptive Explanations Appearing as Attempted Cover-up
Suspicions that these contradictions are not simple mistakes but intentional attempts at concealment become more concrete in the parents’ interviews.
First, the subject of the investigation was the party accused of being the perpetrator (BELIFT LAB).
[Interview with NewJeans Parent A (🔗 Link)]
“She showed us the Slack content with the instructions… Suspicions amplified as to why the ADOR board requested Belift Lab to find the CCTV…” she said. “Moreover, in the Slack content between Belift Lab and the security team, when the security guard said, ‘We found the scene where they greeted and passed by,’ there was a reply from Belift Lab saying, ‘That’s a relief.’ Saying ‘That’s a relief’—I couldn’t understand the intention behind showing us this content… This is, so to speak, the same as asking the perpetrator to find the evidence video.”
An attitude that seems to be looking for a scene that is ‘a relief’ rather than clarifying the truth makes one fundamentally doubt the fairness of the investigation itself.
Second, the explanation that the video does not exist is dubious.
[Interview with NewJeans Parent C (🔗 Link)]
“Hanni said that when she checked the CCTV initially, the security guard told her, ‘There was a scene where they passed by without greeting when they came out again after entering and greeting, but since they greeted when entering, we thought greeting was not necessary when coming out, so we did not keep that video.’ She said the security guard couldn’t make eye contact and was trembling while telling her that.”
Contrary to the official explanation of ‘expiration of the 30-day retention period,’ the security guard on-site offered a completely different explanation: ‘We did not keep it because we thought it was unnecessary.’ Coupled with the situation described by Hanni—”At the time, the security guards couldn’t make eye contact with me and their hands were shaking”—this makes it difficult to erase the suspicion that they are hiding something.
In conclusion, the explanations from BELIFT LAB and the HYBE side conflict with themselves starting from the core time information, and multiple testimonies reveal that the fairness and transparency of the investigation were also not guaranteed. Such selective presentation of evidence, contradictory narratives, and opaque investigation processes leave ample room for interpretation as an attempt to conceal something that happened during the second encounter, and this paradoxically strengthens the probability that Hanni’s claim is true.
2024-10-09: Exclusive Interview with NewJeans’ Mothers
On October 9, the mothers of the NewJeans members spoke out once again to correct the “obvious lies” contained in BELIFT LAB’s official statement. This was prompted by ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young’s refusal to release a corrective statement, citing concerns that “it would likely lead to further counter-arguments and create a vicious cycle.”
1. Distortion of the Essence: Shifting the Frame from “Manager’s Bullying” to “Greeting Controversy”
The most significant problem with BELIFT LAB’s statement is its intentional distortion of the essence of the incident to distract the public.
“We strongly demand an immediate end to attempts to defame rookie artists with baseless greeting controversies.”
“The ILLIT protocol staff (manager) never made the remark ‘Ignore her’ regarding the NewJeans member.”
“ILLIT members have never passed by NewJeans members without greeting them.”
However, as the mothers reiterated in the interview, the core of this issue is clearly “workplace bullying, where another artist’s manager instructed their artists to ignore Hanni.”
“In their statement, BELIFT LAB claimed this was a ‘greeting issue in the realm of goodwill between labels,’ but this is distorting the essence of the problem.”
“Hanni never raised an issue about not being greeted. The issue is that another artist’s manager told those artists to ignore Hanni.”
Furthermore, the parents clarified that they had made efforts to maintain anonymity by “never publicly identifying a specific label or artist.”
“We have tried to resolve this issue internally. We have never publicly named a specific label or artist. It is BELIFT LAB that is tarnishing the reputation of NewJeans and ourselves by releasing a statement containing false information.”
2. CEO Kim Joo-young’s Lukewarm Attitude Toward Resolution and Truth-Finding
CEO Kim Joo-young’s response has been lukewarm since the formal complaint was first filed on June 13. When the parents repeatedly requested “photos of BELIFT LAB managers” to identify the perpetrator, the company refused, citing “human rights issues.”
In response, the parents made a reasonable request for the company to “at least verify the staff members on duty on the date and time mentioned by Hanni,” but they claimed the company failed to respond.
“They claimed that showing photos was a human rights issue. So we said, ‘Then there must be a manager who was in charge of the artists on the date and at the time Hanni mentioned. At least find that person.’ But we never received a proper answer.”
Furthermore, although CEO Kim Joo-young has a clear obligation to protect her label’s artists as the new head of ADOR, her actions as revealed in the interview have raised doubts about her will to do so.
– Refusal to Demand Corrections
She refused to issue a corrective statement regarding BELIFT LAB’s false claims, citing concerns over “label conflict.”
“Everyone asked CEO Kim Joo-young to release an official statement on this matter as the head of ADOR. However, she said she would not, stating, ‘Even if we issue a statement based on the details provided by the parents and Hanni, it is highly likely that further counter-arguments will follow, and it will become a vicious cycle of constant rebuttals.’”
“This time as well, we asked CEO Kim Joo-young for ADOR to release a statement regarding BELIFT LAB’s lies, but she refused, citing concerns over conflicts between labels. That is why we agreed to this interview. If the company won’t fight against these lies, where and how are we supposed to tell the truth?”
– Shifting Responsibility to the Victims
Instead of taking action, she questioned the parents for proceeding with the media interview—which they did only after all internal efforts were frustrated—stating she was “baffled that the interview took place without consulting the company.”
“CEO Kim Joo-young said she was baffled that we interviewed without consulting the company, but we only responded to the press request because we had requested a resolution so many times and nothing was being solved.”
3. Allegations of CCTV Evidence Manipulation and Concealment
The mothers’ additional interview revealed numerous contradictions in BELIFT LAB’s claims regarding the CCTV footage.
3-1. BELIFT LAB’s repeated use of the term “Min’s side” while claiming “New allegations on August 14.”
“Upon reviewing the footage with the side of then-CEO Min Hee-jin on August 14, Min’s side raised a new claim that the refusal to greet occurred after this scene and that other footage must exist.”
“Former CEO Min’s side is claiming that HYBE intentionally deleted the footage.”
However, the mothers stated that BELIFT LAB’s claim of a “new claim” is an outright lie because they had not seen any footage prior to the CCTV review on August 14. They also argued that BELIFT LAB is intentionally misleading the public by repeatedly and incorrectly using the term “Min’s side.”
“Since we hadn’t seen any footage before checking the CCTV on August 14, BELIFT LAB’s claim that ‘Min’s side raised a new claim after watching the video’ is an outright lie.” “They are distorting the essence by using the incorrect expression ‘Min’s side’ even though this is not a claim by former CEO Min Hee-jin.”
““Initially, they said only the individual involved could check the CCTV, so Hanni and one manager went to see it. So what do they mean by ‘Min’s side’?”
“Except for Hanni and one manager, no one else has seen it. How can HYBE (BELIFT LAB) release a statement saying that ‘Min’s side’ changed their words after watching it? They are always changing their stories and fabricating things that don’t exist; it’s reaching a point that is genuinely frightening.”
3-2. When Hanni went to verify the CCTV, the security personnel mentioned two specific scenes while appearing unable to make eye contact and trembling.
“Initially, when Hanni was checking the CCTV, a security staff member told her: ‘There was a scene where they passed by without greeting each other after coming back out, but since you greeted each other when they went in, I thought a greeting wasn’t necessary on the way out, so I didn’t keep it.’ It is said that the security staff member was trembling and unable to make eye contact while telling Hanni that story.”
This directly contradicts BELIFT LAB’s claim of a “single encounter” and suggests that the most critical footage was not preserved because someone “decided” it was “unnecessary.”
3-3. It was also revealed that the footage shown to Hanni on August 14 was from a completely different point in time than the one she had originally reported.
“From the very first time we raised the issue, we clearly explained that this happened while Hanni was alone. Despite this, the video HYBE showed Hanni on August 14 was a scene where she was with an ADOR manager and Danielle.”
“It is a difficult explanation to accept that they showed a completely different video that didn’t match the described situation two months after we raised the issue, and then claimed the rest was deleted due to the expiration of the retention period.”
2024-10-15: National Assembly Audit: Environment and Labor Committee
🔗 2024 National Assembly Audit: Environment and Labor Committee
Hanni (NewJeans) and Kim Joo-young (HYBE CHRO / CEO of ADOR) testified before the National Assembly of South Korea.
The session addressed workplace harassment and the legal and cultural gaps affecting artists like Hanni, who fall outside standard labour protections.
Hanni’s Testimony
1. The ‘Ignore Her’ Incident and Subsequent Actions
1.1. Hanni’s experience during the “Ignore Her” incident
Hanni recounted her experience during the “Ignore Her” incident. Once again, Hanni did not mention any group or label names, focusing solely on the manager’s action and the work environment.
“As they walked by, the manager made eye contact with me and told the members following her, ‘Pretend you didn’t see her, just ignore her.’
I didn’t understand why I had to experience that. And I don’t understand why someone in that position would say something like that in a work environment. But this wasn’t the first time something like this had happened.” – Hanni
1.2 Hanni’s experience during the subsequent investigation and cover-up
1.2.1 Kim Joo-young dismissed Hanni’s concern
Hanni reported the incident to HYBE’s CHRO, then ADOR board member, and now ADOR CEO Kim Joo-young, but was told to endure the harassment due to the loss of evidence
“I was told that since there was no evidence, there was nothing they could do, and they just wanted to let it go.” – Hanni
She expressed that if she did not speak out publicly, the issue would be quietly brushed aside, as had happened before.
“I felt that if I didn’t speak out today, it would just be quietly brushed under the rug, as it has been before. This kind of thing could happen to anyone.” – Hanni
1.2.2 Deletion of CCTV footage and second meeting
Hanni recounted how the CCTV footage of the incident during the exiting encounter was missing, while the 8-second footage of the entering encounter was deliberately kept.
“When I first reported the issue, they said there was no evidence, but they mentioned that there was CCTV footage. However, they said it only showed the greeting scene.
I couldn’t understand why they only had footage of the greeting when I had explained the entire situation. I told them I wanted to see the footage myself, and I did. It was only an 8-second clip showing the greeting, and the footage from 5-10 minutes later was missing.” – Hanni
During a meeting with security personnel on 2024-08-14, explanations for the missing footage kept changing, and someone admitted the footage had been deleted. Hanni recorded the meeting due to language barriers.
“During the meeting, only two people—the head of CCTV protection and the head of security—were present. I kept asking why the later footage was missing because I had clearly explained the situation. Throughout the meeting, their explanation kept changing, and they even accidentally admitted that the footage had been deleted… I recorded the meeting to make sure I didn’t miss anything important. I have evidence of them lying.” – Hanni
1.2.3 ADOR’s new management enables harassment
In response to Kim Joo-young saying that she did her best, Hanni stated that HYBE and ADOR, after the management change, did not do their best and lacked the will to fight for the artists.
“I’m sorry, but I don’t think they did their best. There were definitely more things they could have done. From the beginning, they said they would protect us, but if they really wanted to protect us, they would have had to fight for us. But since they had no will to fight or take any real action, I don’t think they can claim they did their best.” – Hanni
She insisted that the issue be resolved quickly rather than being brushed aside with promises of future improvement.
“Well, I know too well that if I just say I hope they will try harder in the future, this issue will be brushed aside. Before talking about the future, I hope they will resolve this issue.” – Hanni
2. Pattern of hostile behaviours targeting NewJeans
Hanni described a persistent, hard-to-define atmosphere of disrespect and exclusion within HYBE and its sub-labels, which targeted NewJeans since their debut.
She emphasised that the “Ignore Her” incident was not an isolated event, but rather part of a broader pattern of hostility and cold treatment from management and staff, making it clear that HYBE had despised NewJeans since their debut.
“There was always a certain atmosphere in the company, but it was hard to pinpoint or explain. And it was difficult to tell anyone about it because only those who experienced it would truly understand. To be honest, I thought it might have just been my own feelings. But after recent events… I realized that the atmosphere wasn’t just in my head. I became certain that there are people in the company who don’t like us.” – Hanni
2.1 NewJeans have been constantly ignored since their debut
From the start of her career, Hanni recalled being routinely ignored by senior staff and management, even when she greeted them. She noted that while Korean culture values respect for elders, ignoring greetings is disrespectful on a human level.
“It wasn’t just that one event…. From the very beginning of my debut, I encountered a number of higher-ups. Every time I greeted them, they never responded. From living in Korea, I’ve come to understand that it’s part of the culture to be respectful to those who are older. But not responding to a greeting—regardless of rank—just seemed disrespectful, even from a human perspective.” – Hanni
2.2 Other instances of bullying
Hanni pointed to multiple recent events that confirmed her sense of being targeted. These included seeing NewJeans mocked by company employees on the Blind app and learning that HYBE’s PR team had asked a journalist to downplay NewJeans’ achievements in Japan. These actions, she said, made it clear that the company’s animosity was not just her imagination.
“But after recent events—like the incident with that manager, and seeing NewJeans being criticized on the Blind app by company employees, as well as hearing a recording of a PR team leader trying to lower the success of our Japan debut—I realized that the atmosphere wasn’t just in my head. I became certain that there are people in the company who don’t like us.” – Hanni
Hanni’s testimony is further supported by public displays of hostility, such as negative comments about NewJeans by HYBE employees on social media and internal platforms.
2.3 Perceived reasons for mistreatment
Hanni suggested that NewJeans’ different debut path and success led to hostility within the company, possibly exacerbated by shareholder disputes.
“We debuted differently. Normally, there’s a set path in the company. But we debuted in a different way. And because we succeeded, I think they’re trying to bring us down.” – Hanni
She acknowledged that the conflict between CEO Min Heejin and CEO Bang Si-hyuk might be related, but that doesn’t mean she and her bandmates should endure workplace bullying for it.
“It can’t be unrelated. Because they do have a relationship. But setting that aside, they didn’t need to bring it into work. But like I said before, they keep doing this, so I felt like I couldn’t just stay silent anymore.” – Hanni
3. Advocacy on artists’ rights and systemic change
3.1 Speaking out for all K-pop artists and trainees
Hanni made it clear her decision to testify was motivated by a desire to protect not only herself and her group but also all those who might be vulnerable in the industry, especially trainees, juniors, and peers who lack a public voice.
“This kind of thing could happen to anyone. So I decided to speak up, hoping that neither seniors, juniors, peers, nor trainees would have to experience this kind of treatment.” – Hanni
She also stressed that the fundamental issue is not about legal status, contracts, or fame, but about treating all individuals, whether artists, trainees, or staff, with basic human dignity. She called for a shift in perspective within the industry to recognize this shared humanity.
“First of all, the contracts between artists and trainees can differ, right? But one thing that doesn’t change is that we are all human. I feel like a lot of people miss that point. I hope people take another look at it.” – Hanni
She argued that many of the industry’s most persistent problems—including workplace harassment—could be prevented if everyone, regardless of position, simply respected each other as people.
“While I know that no law can solve all the problems in the world, I feel that… if we respect each other as humans, at the very least, issues like workplace harassment and other sensitive matters wouldn’t exist.” – Hanni
Hanni expressed gratitude for the attention on this issue and hopes that her testimony would help improve protections for all workers in the industry.
“I’ve seen that many people are concerned for us, and I’m very thankful. … What I want to say here is that there’s no need to feel sorry. … I truly appreciate it, and you’ve all worked so hard.” – Hanni
3.2 The need for a culture of accountability
Hanni also criticised the tendency of those in power to avoid responsibility, emphasising that genuine respect and accountability are essential for a healthy work environment.
“On the contrary, the people who should be apologising should come forward confidently if they’ve done nothing wrong, without avoiding accountability, but instead, they keep dodging situations like this, which is really frustrating.” – Hanni
Kim Joo-young’s Testimony
1. Response to “Ignore Her” incident
1.1. Mishandling of the harassment incident and evidence
Kim Joo-young stated she was first informed of the “ignore her” incident by Hanni’s parents on 2024-06-13. She claimed that, as an ADOR board member, she took all possible steps: requesting a review of the CCTV footage, asking the relevant label (Belift Lab) to investigate, and checking whether the footage could be restored.
“I was first informed on June 13th by the informant’s parents when I was still a board member at ADOR. … I requested to check the CCTV footage. The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. Nonetheless, I requested that the relevant label investigate whether such incidents had occurred between the artist and the manager. Additionally, I even checked if the CCTV footage, which had expired, could be restored. I took all possible steps within my capacity.” – Kim Joo-young
She maintained that the only footage available was an 8-second clip showing the greeting, and the rest had expired after 30 days per data protection policy.
“The only footage we were able to secure was the one showing the manager greeting someone, and we kept that footage. I want to clarify that the other footage wasn’t deleted; it simply expired after 30 days according to the standard personal data protection guidelines, so it’s not recoverable.” – Kim Joo-young
1.1.1. Counter-Argument: Gaslighting despite ample time to secure evidence
Both Kim and NewJeans’ parents confirmed the incident was reported on 2024-06-13—9 working days before the CCTV retention period ended. There was ample time to secure the footage if HYBE had acted promptly. The loss of evidence was completely due to HYBE’s delay and mishandling.
Despite this, Hanni had experienced gaslighting from Kim-Joo-young, where she blamed the loss of evidence footage on Hanni for supposedly reporting the incident too late.
“CEO Kim Jooyoung had previously told Hanni, ‘You should have reported this earlier; the footage was already deleted after a month.’ But Hanni had clearly spoken up early on, and we also raised the issue immediately. Despite that, we got such a response, so Hanni must have thought, ‘Are they saying I did something wrong?’” – NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)
1.1.2. Counter-Argument: Inconsistent explanations for CCTV and possible cover-up
While Kim Joo-young maintained that the footage was deleted due to the 30-day data retention policy, Hanni and NewJeans’ parents have been given other explanations on why the footage was deleted. Notably, Hanni had testified minutes before that a security personnel member admitted that the footage was deliberately deleted on the record.
“I kept asking why the later footage was missing because I had clearly explained the situation. Throughout the meeting, their explanation kept changing, and they even accidentally admitted that the footage had been deleted… I recorded the meeting to make sure I didn’t miss anything important. I have evidence of them lying.” – Hanni
Despite this, Kim Joo-Young reportedly tried to emotionally intimidate Hanni into letting it go.
“During the meeting on the 23rd, Hanni explained to CEO Kim Joo-young, ‘Since you said only the victims can confirm, on the day I visited the security team to check the CCTV, the security staff couldn’t make eye contact with me and were fidgeting with their hands.’ In response, CEO Kim Joo-young said something like, ‘I’m looking at you directly,’ which left Hanni feeling very surprised.” – NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)
1.1.3. Counter-Argument: Why was Belift Lab allowed to investigate themselves and control evidence?
Despite being HYBE’s CHRO, Kim left the investigation and evidence handling to Belift Lab—the label accused of wrongdoing—instead of having ADOR or HYBE’s HR department review the footage or conduct the investigation themselves.
“I requested that the relevant label (Belift Lab) investigate whether such incidents had occurred between the artist and the manager.” – Kim Joo-young
This created a clear conflict of interest and undermined the credibility of the process.
“If this is an issue between subordinate labels, shouldn’t HYBE maintain neutrality in the investigation? Moreover, isn’t it right for the department responsible for workplace harassment to handle it? … Yet, they were looking for relevant materials from Belift Lab.
Requests to find this CCTV footage should have been made directly by Ador to the security team, or through the workplace harassment department at HYBE. Why would the Ador board request Belift Lab to look for it? My suspicions have only increased.
This is essentially like asking the perpetrator to find the evidence footage. In the end, they claimed the scene containing the problematic ‘ignore’ had been deleted, and when I suggested doing a forensic recovery, they said it was impossible due to technical issues, leaving me wondering how I could possibly trust that.” – NewJeans’ parents (2024-10-07 NewJeans Parents Interview with Ilgan Sports)
As HYBE’s CHRO, Kim Joo-young was fully responsible for investigating suspected workplace bullying across all sub-labels. By allowing Belift Lab to have full control over the evidence and investigation, she failed to ensure impartiality and transparency, raising serious doubts about the integrity of the process.
2. Deflection of responsibility as HYBE CHRO
Throughout her testimony, Kim Joo-young repeatedly tried to limit her accountability to her role as ADOR board member or CEO, despite also being HYBE’s current CHRO—a position with responsibility for labor, artist welfare, and workplace culture across all HYBE sub-labels, and authority to conduct investigations. When pressed by lawmakers, she avoided direct answers about her CHRO duties and HYBE’s HR obligations.
Park Hong-bae: “Are you still the Chief Human Resources Officer at HYBE?”
Kim Joo-young: “Yes, that’s correct.”
Park Hong-bae: “Have you ever apologized to the artists in your capacity as CHRO?”
Kim Joo-young: “…When I meet with artists, I try my best to assist them and show respect as a corporate executive of Ador.”
Park Hong-bae: “As CHRO, you also bear responsibility, so I believe you should apologize.”
Kim Joo-young: “Yes, if there is a need for an apology, I will make one.”
Kim’s insistence on responding as ADOR CEO, rather than as HYBE CHRO, is a clear attempt to avoid accountability. As CHRO, she should have intervened at the parent company’s level, ensured an impartial investigation, and taken responsibility for HR failures across all labels.
2.1. Use of corporate structure as an excuse
Kim repeatedly cited HYBE’s multi-label structure as a reason for inaction, claiming that each label operates as a separate legal entity. She claimed this made it difficult for her as she cannot intervene directly across subsidiaries as an ADOR board member — even though, as CHRO, she oversees HR matters for all sub-labels under HYBE.
“The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. … As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.” – Kim Joo-young
Lawmakers challenged this excuse:
- HYBE is a centralised company with multiple sub-labels, and the “separate entity” excuse is not credible.
- As CHRO, Kim has the authority and duty to enforce standards and mediate disputes across HYBE’s sub-label, especially in cases of workplace bullying.
Kim Joo-young: “The manager in question is not from ADOR but from another company under a different CEO. … As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.”
Park Jeong: “At the group level, isn’t there room for mediation from higher-ups? If two separate companies can’t resolve it, surely there are higher-ranking officials like the chairman who could mediate?”
Kim Joo-young: “As independent subsidiaries, I made every effort, but it was difficult to enforce anything on the other company’s manager.”
Park Hong-bae: “In the past, entertainment companies did not operate with numerous subsidiary companies under a single corporation, did they? But now, even if they are physically together, the companies are divided legally. If the other managers from different subsidiaries say something, how can we respond if your management has the attitude of ‘That’s a different company; we can’t engage’?”
Kim Joo-young: “Yes, I take your criticism to heart.”
Kim’s reliance on corporate structure as an excuse highlights a deeper issue of accountability at HYBE.
Despite sharing the same parent company, work environment, and HR department, HYBE treats its sub-labels as separate entities when it suits them.
This unique sub-label system, unlike other K-pop companies, creates a loophole where cross-label offenses are difficult to address properly. This structure allows HYBE to sidestep responsibility by compartmentalising its subsidiaries, even though they operate under the same umbrella.
3. The impact of corporate conflict
Kim acknowledged that ongoing disputes among HYBE’s major shareholders might be affecting the company atmosphere and said employees were told to focus on their work.
“Yes, from the perspective of the employees… The company has informed employees that this is a legal matter currently under judicial review, so we ask everyone to focus on their work in their respective positions.” – Kim Joo-young
Kim did not address how such a hostile environment may have enabled or escalated bullying and exclusion, nor did she outline any concrete steps to protect artists and staff from the fallout of corporate conflict.
Hanni also noted that the cold treatment toward NewJeans predated the shareholder dispute, but the conflict intensified the negative atmosphere and made open hostility more common.
4. Contradictions on artist status and anti-bullying policy
Kim initially distinguished between artists and employees, but was forced to admit that HYBE’s code of conduct includes artists as “members” and that telling Hanni to be ignored would violate the code.
Park Hong-bae: “Did you say that HYBE members are employees?”
Kim Joo-young: “Yes, that’s right.”
Park Hong-bae: “So, artists are not considered members?”
Kim Joo-young: “Our Code of Conduct encompasses all members, including artists, and emphasizes the importance of respect among members and external partners when collaborating.”
Park Hong-bae: “I have the code here. It clearly states that ‘HYBE members include the company, artists, and other members.’”
Kim Joo-young: “…In a broad sense, yes, you could say that.”
Park Hong-bae: “There is no broad definition mentioned in the code. It specifies that ‘HYBE members must protect the affiliated artists and respect their personal rights and must refer to the artists by their appropriate titles.’ Therefore, if Hanni Pham was told to be ignored, that would be a violation of this code, right?”
Kim Joo-young: “…If it is true that she was told to be ignored, then yes, that would be a violation of the code.”
Kim’s shifting answers and reluctance to admit clear violations of company policy further undermine her credibility and highlight a pattern of minimising or deflecting responsibility, which corroborates Hanni’s accusation of a systematic lack of accountability within HYBE.
5. Commitment to improvement
Kim promised to listen more closely to artists, strengthen communication, and cooperate with the ongoing investigation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor. She asked for trust and time as the new CEO of ADOR.
“We will listen more carefully to Hanni and other artists, and we will work to protect their rights and ensure that they can pursue their dreams and hopes to the fullest. … If you trust me and give me a little more time, I will work to build a better company, one that contributes to society and responds to the love of K-pop fans.” – Kim Joo-young
These promises have been made before in previous scandals, but without structural change, they risk being empty words. The lack of concrete action or accountability to date raises doubts about HYBE’s willingness to address root causes.
True improvement requires not just listening, but implementing enforceable protections and transparent processes for artists and workers.
6. Response to employee death allegation
Kim confirmed that in 2022-09, a HYBE employee collapsed at work and later died, claiming it was due to a personal health condition, not overwork, and denied any attempt to cover up the incident.
“Yes, in September, the individual went to the rest area around 5 p.m., saying they would take a break. Unfortunately, they collapsed, and we found them and took them to the hospital. They passed away a few days later due to a personal health condition.” – Kim Joo-young
“There was absolutely no attempt to cover up the incident at HYBE. Such a thing would never happen.” – Kim Joo-young
“That was the decision of the family.” – Kim Joo-young
Lawmakers and some HYBE employees questioned this explanation, pointing out that regardless of pre-existing conditions, the death occurred after an intensive period of overwork.
In addition to that, since HYBE failed to file an industrial accident claim, a subsequent autopsy was not performed, and there is no way to conclusively determine the true cause of death.
This reflects a broader pattern of inadequate transparency and accountability in HYBE’s handling of labor and safety issues.
2024-11-13: NewJeans Sends Legal Notice
On this day, NewJeans dispatched this Legal Notice (Certification of Contents) under the real names of all five members: Kim Minji, Hanni Pham, Danielle Marsh, Kang Haerin, and Lee Hyein.
In the Legal Notice, the members demanded, “Within 14 days from the date of receipt of this letter, correct all material violations of the exclusive contract as stated,” and announced, “We inform you that we plan to terminate the exclusive contract if ADOR does not accept the demands for corrective action.”
Requirements of the Legal Notice
🔗 Acquisition of NewJeans’ Legal Notice… A Look into the Requirements [Subtitled News]
🔗 ADOR: “We Will Take the Best Possible Measures and Respond Sincerely… We Hope to Have a Conversation”
- Regarding HYBE’s decision that “it’s a matter of discarding New [NewJeans] and starting fresh,” please take all necessary measures as NewJeans’ management agency.
- Regarding the manager of another label who told Hanni to “ignore her,” ADOR has not yet taken any action and has neglected the issue.
- We urge ADOR to take action regarding HYBE PR (Cho (name redacted), Head of PR) downplaying NewJeans’ achievements.
- Photos, videos, and other materials from NewJeans’ trainee days were released through the media without authorization and have yet to be deleted.
- Please resolve the situation where NewJeans’ achievements have been relatively devalued due to “album pushing.”
- Please immediately resolve the unnecessary dispute with Director Shin Woo-seok of Dolphiners Films and the issue of NewJeans’ existing works disappearing.
- Please take all necessary measures to protect NewJeans’ unique color and guarantee NewJeans’ activities.
- Please reinstate former director Min Hee-jin as CEO.
According to Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the exclusive contract, if ADOR violates the terms of the exclusive contract, NewJeans may demand corrective action by setting a 14-day grace period, and may rescind or terminate the contract if the violations are not corrected within that period. As NewJeans has already significantly lost trust in ADOR, we inform you that if all the violations mentioned in Item 2 above are not corrected within 14 days of receiving this letter, there will be no way to restore the broken trust, and we will have no choice but to terminate the exclusive contract.
2024-11-14: ADOR Confirms Receipt of Legal Notice
ADOR released an official statement acknowledging the receipt of NewJeans’ Legal Notice (Certification of Contents), but provided a response stating that specific measures are “under review.”
2024-11-15: Interview with BELIFT LAB CEO Kim Tae-ho
🔗 [Exclusive] BELIFT LAB CEO Speaks Out on Proposal Plagiarism Allegations… “Completely Different” [Interview ①]
🔗 [Exclusive] BELIFT LAB CEO: “ILLIT Audition Rigged? Fairly Selected via Voting” [Interview ②]
🔗 [Exclusive] BELIFT LAB CEO: “NewJeans’ Achievements Are Great but We Never Copied Them… ILLIT Members Also Deeply Shocked” [Interview ③]
In an exclusive interview with OSEN, BELIFT LAB CEO Kim Tae-ho addressed various controversies related to NewJeans, including the “Ignore Her” incident.
In Interview ③, CEO Kim Tae-ho denied the allegations, stating, “Once again, no one ever instructed the ILLIT members to ignore Hanni“.
“…As I say again, the words ‘ignore her’ were never spoken”.
Furthermore, BELIFT LAB CEO Kim Tae-ho stated that the “Ignore Her” incident caused significant shock to ILLIT.
“Initially, the members naturally had a hard time. I heard they suffered among themselves and told the company they were fine because they were worried about us. They were especially shocked when the ‘Ignore Her’ incident broke. The members know the facts accurately, don’t they? They asked why things were going this far. They asked if the CEO had done something wrong, or if they had done something wrong. It seemed they were afraid of going on stage”.
However, no one related to Hanni has ever blamed the ILLIT members regarding the “Ignore Her” incident; rather, Hanni specifically raised issues with the behavior of the ILLIT manager and the irresponsible attitude of the management side.
2024-11-20: Ministry of Employment and Labor Closes “Workplace Harassment” Complaint
According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor on the 20th, the Seoul Western District Office of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office has administratively closed the complaint related to workplace harassment filed by fans, which alleged that NewJeans Hanni was ostracized within the company.
While NewJeans fans filed over 100 complaints and petitioned the Ministry of Employment and Labor for an investigation, the Western District Office did not recognize Hanni’s status as a worker. The Western District Office stated, “Given the content and nature of the management contract signed by Hanni Pham, it is difficult to consider her a worker under the Labor Standards Act who provides labor for the purpose of wages within a subordinate relationship.”
2024-11-27: ADOR Releases Statement Just Before the Deadline for Corrective Action
🔗 Full Text of ADOR’s Official Statement
*This statement is the implementation of measures according to the artist’s Legal Notice.
Hello, this is ADOR.
On October 7, 2024, BELIFT LAB released a statement regarding the “manager’s ignore remark” through their BELIFT LAB X account and the “Notice” section. ADOR has maintained a cautious stance until now, out of concern that a dispute over facts could spark unnecessary controversy involving ADOR’s artists. However, as the controversy remains unresolved despite ADOR’s efforts, we are now clarifying our position.
BELIFT LAB’s claims differ completely from NewJeans member Hanni’s account. Hanni clearly remembers that on May 27, 2024, a member of BELIFT LAB made remarks involving her to the effect of “ignore her” or “just ignore and pass by.” Expecting the victim to recall every detail of an incident that occurred in a relatively brief moment in order to raise the issue is an unduly harsh and strict standard. ADOR and its members fully trust our artist’s words and genuinely regret the harm Hanni has suffered.
We hope that BELIFT LAB does not take Hanni’s suffering lightly and shows mutual respect, and we expect a sincere attitude from BELIFT LAB to ensure that unnecessary controversies involving ADOR’s artists do not continue.
1. A Statement Released on the Final Day of the Deadline Lacking Sincerity
First, the fact that the statement was released only on November 27, the very last day of the 14-day grace period for corrective action, raises doubts about ADOR’s sincerity. If ADOR had a proactive will to protect its artists or resolve the issue, the sincere course of action would have been to announce a plan for immediate measures right after receiving the Legal Notice (Certification of Contents).
This statement is the implementation of measures according to the artist’s Legal Notice.
Specifically mentioning the formal legal demand reveals that the agency acted not out of internal conviction or urgency, but in response to external pressure.
2. ADOR’s Admission of Inaction for the Sake of Protecting HYBE’s Image
ADOR publicly stated that they “maintained a cautious stance until now, out of concern that… [disputes] could spark unnecessary controversy.”
ADOR has maintained a cautious stance until now, out of concern that a dispute over facts could spark unnecessary controversy involving ADOR’s artists.
However, despite Hanni and her parents consistently requesting an investigation into the “Ignore Her” incident since June, ADOR maintained a lukewarm attitude and allowed the investigation to be conducted by BELIFT LAB, the label to which the alleged perpetrator belongs.
Furthermore, CEO Kim Ju-young shifted the blame to the victim, telling Hanni she “should have spoken up sooner,” and refused to release a rebuttal even when BELIFT LAB spread false information, citing concerns over “inter-label conflict.”
Consequently, ADOR appears to have prioritized relations between HYBE’s sub-labels over the protection of its own artists through its “cautious stance.”
3. ADOR Delivered Vague Requests Instead of Substantial Solutions
ADOR expressed regret, saying they “genuinely regret the harm Hanni has suffered” and stated that they “fully trust” Hanni’s words.
ADOR and its members fully trust our artist’s words and genuinely regret the harm Hanni has suffered.
However, they failed to present any specific measures on how to resolve the past harm or prevent similar incidents in the future. There was no mention of internal investigations, disciplinary actions, or procedural safeguards for relapse prevention.
4. ADOR Minimized the Incident as a Mere “Controversy”
Throughout the entire statement, ADOR consistently referred to the matter as a “controversy” rather than a potential case of mistreatment or illegal act. This phrasing appears intended to deliberately downplay the severity of the incident and divert attention from the accountability.
…out of concern that [disputes] could spark unnecessary controversy involving ADOR’s artists.
…as the controversy remains unresolved despite ADOR’s efforts…
By approaching the current situation from the perspective of controversy management, ADOR focused on managing its own image rather than the actual harm suffered by the artist.
5. ADOR Later Overturned Its Own Claims of “Trusting and Supporting Hanni” in Court
Despite claiming to publicly support Hanni in this statement, ADOR later submitted evidence out of context in court in an attempt to undermine Hanni’s testimony.
This included CCTV footage from unrelated timeframes and selected messages, which directly contradicted the “full trust” expressed in this statement.
BELIFT LAB’s claims differ completely from NewJeans member Hanni’s account.
…Expecting the victim to recall every detail… in a relatively brief moment… is an unduly harsh and strict standard.
2025-03-07: ADOR Submits Unrelated CCTV Footage and Edited KakaoTalk Messages at Injunction Hearing
At the injunction examination date, ADOR submitted evidence to refute claims regarding “the Ignore Her incident,” but the materials have been criticized for being selective and out of context. The submission included an 8-second clip of the first encounter (entering) and edited KakaoTalk conversation records between Hanni and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin.
📌 CCTV Footage Unrelated to the Incident
The CCTV footage submitted by ADOR was obtained from BELIFT LAB and captured only an 8-second moment from the first encounter. This appears to have deliberately excluded the second encounter where the “ignore her” remark actually took place.
Hanni and her parents have consistently raised issues with HYBE and ADOR for investigation and resolution of the matter. Specifically, they criticized BELIFT LAB and ADOR for claiming that only the footage of the entering timeframe was preserved, while the footage of the exiting timeframe was deleted.
“I checked the emails to see how much we requested… we communicated and made requests almost every week from June 13 to June 25, July 10, July 20, and through September.” — Ilgan Sports Interview, 241009
“There were more than one or two strange points. We raised this issue immediately after it happened. Yet, we received a nonsensical answer that CCTV is set to be deleted after 30 days. Then, when we asked to recover it, they replied that it is technically difficult to recover what has been deleted.” — Ilgan Sports Interview, 241007
“But absurdly, it wasn’t that all footage from the date of the incident was missing. They showed Hanni an 8-second clip of her and other artists greeting each other. But the important part is when that artist and the manager were coming out (exiting), and they said all footage from other timeframes was deleted. Why would they save only the scene that isn’t a problem?” — Ilgan Sports Interview, 241007
Hanni and her parents provided specific details to identify the exact timeframe, such as “when Hanni was alone in the hallway” and “when they [the other team] came out again.”
“One day I was waiting alone in the hallway… we greeted each other well. But when they came out again a little later, that manager said ‘ignore her‘ right in front of me. I could hear and see everything, and they said ‘ignore her.’” — NewJeans Emergency Live, 240911, Hanni
“…About 5-10 minutes later, they came out again. I was in the same spot. The manager made eye contact with me and then told the members following behind to ‘pretend not to see her and ignore her.’” — National Assembly Audit, 241015, Hanni
“From the very first time we raised the issue, we clearly explained that it happened when Hanni was alone. Yet, the video HYBE showed Hanni on August 14 was a scene where Hanni was with an ADOR manager and Danielle.” — Ilgan Sports Interview, 241009
However, BELIFT LAB and ADOR maintained that the footage of the exiting timeframe was deleted and only submitted the entering footage from 5-10 minutes prior as evidence.
https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/366/0001059054?sid=101
📌 Edited KakaoTalk Messages
ADOR submitted and disclosed KakaoTalk messages exchanged between Hanni and CEO Min Hee-jin shortly after the “Ignore Her” incident (June 2, 2024) as evidence. In response, NewJeans’ side also disclosed parts of the screenshots.
However, the versions disclosed by both sides are incomplete, and some media outlets selectively reported this conversation with sensational headlines.
1. Conversation Record
Below is the conversation record reconstructed based on the screenshots released by both ADOR and NewJeans. This conversation consists of personal messages exchanged as Hanni reported the ‘Ignore Her’ incident to CEO Min Hee-jin, her superior at the time.
These conversation contents were illegally extracted by HYBE and ADOR from CEO Min Hee-jin’s work laptop and released without the consent of either party; they were subsequently disclosed during the injunction hearing on March 7, 2025.
The transcript below was reconstructed using screenshots released by the ADOR side and the NewJeans side, and the messages were arranged in the correct order as much as possible.
‼️ Notes
- The released screenshots have been edited, so complete accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Words that appear to be typos have been transcribed to reflect the original delivery without arbitrary editing.
- The numbers in front of the messages are added for convenience and do not imply chronological order or that the entire conversation has been disclosed.
1) Hanni – 10:32 PM
Just… I was out in the 4th-floor hallway picking up the choreoㅠ and you know the elevator room!
2) Hanni – 10:33 PM
3 ILLIT members and one manager came out there, so I greeted them as I usually do!!
3) Hanni – 10:33 PM
The 4 of them went into the styling room, and I just stayed in the hallway!!
4) Hanni – 10:33 PM
Because it was almost departure time
5) Hanni – 10:33 PM
But about… 5-10 minutes later??..
6) Hanni – 10:34 PM
The 4 of them came out of the styling room again, I heard the door open, and then the manager on that side
7) Hanni – 10:34 PM
I heard [him/her] say, “Just pretend you don’t know her and walk past.”
8) Hanni – 10:35 PM
I don’t remember if those were the exact words, but it was roughly something like that
9) Hanni – 10:36 PM
So as they walked past, that manager didn’t look at me at all, and one member kept looking towards that manager and said “Yes, yes!”… something like “I’ll just pretend I don’t know her,” I think they said something like that
10) Min Hee-jin – 10:36 PM
But you greeted them?
11) Min Hee-jin – 10:36 PM
The manager ordered them not to accept your greeting.
12) Min Hee-jin – 10:36 PM
?
13) Hanni – 10:36 PM
One person greeted me kinda vaguely while avoiding my eyes, and the last person greeted me but it felt like they were walking on eggshells (reading the room).
14) Hanni – 10:36 PM
Reply to “The manager ordered them not to accept your greeting.”
I’m not sure
15) Hanni – 10:36 PM
I did!! I did [greet them]!!
16) Min Hee-jin
(Chat content is cut off and cannot be verified)
17) Hanni – 10:37 PM
Reply to “But what is the point where you felt strange?”
That the manager said such things…
18) Min Hee-jin – 10:37 PM
“Ignore her”
19) Min Hee-jin – 10:37 PM
This?
20) Hanni – 10:37 PM
Just… there’s no need for us to do that among ourselves
21) Hanni – 10:38 PM
It just felt a bit off personally because the manager said something like that
22) Min Hee-jin – 10:39 PM
Said it so you could hear
23) Min Hee-jin – 10:39 PM
Did everyone ignore you?
24) Hanni – 10:39 PM
Yes… they said that while coming out as I heard the door open
25) Min Hee-jin – 10:39 PM
Did all ILLIT members ignore you?
26) Hanni – 오후 11:04
see i totally understand why the girls would be uncomfortable and awkward when they see us because there’s been so much rivalry between our teams in the media and inside the company so i fully get that
* The messages below appear to have been spliced together, so the order is not clear.
27) Hanni
Rather than feeling bad about it, slightly… honestly speaking, it was funny
28) Hanni
Ah, I felt once again that we are working with really good people
29) Hanni
Because I really don’t care about those people at all
30) Hanni – 11:18 PM
If you are worrying about that, you don’t have to!!
2. ADOR’s Submission of Edited Conversation Record to Court
The conversation record submitted by ADOR at the injunction hearing on March 7, 2025, was divided into 4 individual screenshots, but it appeared to have been arbitrarily edited without maintaining the order and flow of the conversation record.
SOURCE: The Bunny Association (LINK)
2.1 Intentional Editing and Omission
There are clear traces of messages being selectively cut and omitted in the screenshots.
- Message 20 appears out of order (appears in both Screenshot 2 and 3).
- Messages 26~30 (Screenshot 4) clearly appear to be spliced together.
- The speech bubble of Message 16 (top of Screenshot 3) is cut off, making it impossible to check the content between Message 15 and 16.
2.2 Manipulation of Message Order / Concern for Context Distortion
- The messages are not organized in chronological order, interrupting the overall flow of the conversation and making it difficult to easily grasp the cause-and-effect relationship.
- When comparing Screenshot 2 and 3, the position of Message 20 is different, raising concerns that the overall context of the conversation could be misunderstood.
2.3 Inconsistent / Missing Timestamps
- Several messages are spliced together to look like one continuous thought, but there is a possibility that they were actually sent at different times.
- In Screenshot 4, there are no timestamps at all for the messages between 11:04 PM and 11:18 PM where Hanni reflects on the situation.
- In Screenshot 2, Hanni’s Message 20 appears right after Message 15, with only a 1-minute interval. While this looks natural on its own, looking at Screenshot 3 afterwards reveals that at least 4 messages were omitted between the two messages.
- Parts like the above make it even more difficult to grasp the actual chronological order and conversational flow of the KakaoTalk messages.
2.4 Presentation Ignoring Context
ADOR placed 4 screenshots without regard for order or context, making them appear as if they were a continuous conversation.
- They presented Messages 1~9 and 17~25 on one slide, and Messages 10~16, 20, and 26~30 on another slide. Even though this arrangement is not sequential, ADOR presented it as if it were a connected conversation.
3. ADOR’s Intention
On the date of the injunction hearing, the ADOR side argued that “Former CEO Min escalated the issue into an ‘Ignore Her’ incident regarding a matter that Hanni herself said was not a big deal.”
3.1 Attempt to Downgrade Credibility of ‘What Hanni Heard’
Hanni’s stance was clear from the beginning; she heard the ILLIT manager instructing the members to ignore her. The only part Hanni was not sure about was the ‘exact Korean expression’ of that instruction, not the content, nuance, or intention of the remark.
ADOR chose a strategy of separating specific phrases from the overall context to undermine the credibility of Hanni’s claims.
3.1.1 Hanni’s explanation is clear, proactive, and uninfluenced
According to Hanni’s memory, she clearly heard the ILLIT manager instructing [the members] to ignore her.
6) Hanni – 10:34 PM
The 4 of them came out of the styling room again, I heard the door open, and then the manager on that side7) Hanni – 10:34 PM
I heard [him/her] say, “Just pretend you don’t know her and walk past.”
These messages clearly show that the story about the ‘Ignore Her’ incident originated from Hanni, not CEO Min Hee-jin. Hanni reported the incident to CEO Min Hee-jin first and explained the sequence of events in great detail.
3.1.2 Hanni was sure about the meaning of the manager’s remark
The fact that Hanni showed a clear and consistent attitude regarding what she experienced can also be confirmed in the conversation record.
First, Hanni clearly explained that she heard the manager instructing the ILLIT members to ignore her.
7) Hanni – 10:34 PM
I heard [him/her] say, “Just pretend you don’t know her and walk past.”
The only part where Hanni expressed uncertainty was regarding the exact ‘words’.
8) Hanni – 10:35 PM
I don’t remember if those were the exact words, but it was roughly something like that
However, considering Hanni is not a native Korean speaker, this can be seen as natural, and she clearly understood the overall meaning that the manager’s remark was to ‘ignore’ her.
In the subsequent conversation, Hanni maintained her stance on the incident consistently and repeatedly mentioned that the manager’s remark was the biggest problem.
17) Hanni – 10:37 PM
Reply to “But what is the point where you felt strange?”
That the manager said such things…21) Hanni – 10:38
PM It just felt a bit off personally because the manager said something like that24) Hanni – 10:39 PM
Yes… they said that while coming out as I heard the door open
This shows that Hanni was not confused or uncertain about the incident itself, but only had difficulty recalling the ‘exact expression’ of the manager.
3.1.3. ADOR encouraging doubt with misleading interpretation
Hanni’s reply, “I’m not sure” (Message 14), was a response to the specific question of whether the manager’s instruction was directed at her ‘greeting’, not about the entire incident.
14) Hanni – 10:36 PM
Reply to “The manager ordered them not to accept your greeting.” I’m not sure
Hanni’s reply above was about ‘whether the instruction specifically targeted Hanni’s own greeting’, not about the occurrence of the incident itself.
However, ADOR distorted Hanni’s answer in a specific context as if she had no confidence in the entire incident by emphasizing only the statement “I’m not sure” and removing the important context.
Looking at the full context (Messages 6-7, 9, 13, 17, 24), it can be seen that Hanni reported what she experienced with certainty and consistency, and the only uncertainty was about the ‘word-level exact expression’ related to the ‘greeting’, not the incident itself.
3.2. ADOR’s Claim that CEO Min Hee-jin Created the ‘Ignore Her’ Frame
Looking at the entire context of the disclosed conversation, contrary to ADOR’s claim, CEO Min Hee-jin only tried to clearly grasp the situation after hearing Hanni’s explanation and did not manipulate or exaggerate the situation.
3.2.1. It was Hanni who first brought up the word meaning ‘Ignore’
The story that the ILLIT manager told the members to ignore Hanni came directly from Hanni, and she told the story first saying she heard that instruction without any induction from CEO Min Hee-jin.
Hanni – 10:34 PM
I heard [him/her] say, “Just pretend you don’t know her and walk past.”
CEO Min Hee-jin using the expression “Ignore her” later was part of a clear fact-checking process.
18) Min Hee-jin – 10:37 PM
“Ignore her”19) Min Hee-jin – 10:37 PM
This?
CEO Min Hee-jin was reconfirming what Hanni said, not inventing a new word. Looking at the chronological order of the conversation, it is clear that the expression “Ignore her” originated from Hanni’s experience, not CEO Min Hee-jin.
3.2.2. ADOR’s visual editing and wordplay that cause misunderstanding
Throughout the conversation, CEO Min Hee-jin showed herself summarizing what Hanni said later to reconfirm it or asking questions to clearly grasp the situation, which was a way to verify if Min Hee-jin herself understood the meaning Hanni intended to convey.
However, ADOR used red boxes and arrows to visually connect the summary remark made later by CEO Min Hee-jin (“Ignore her”, this?) with Hanni’s existing remark (I heard [him/her] say, “Just pretend you don’t know her and walk past.”).
Such editing makes it appear as if CEO Min Hee-jin came up with the idea of ‘Ignore’ for the first time, even though she was actually reconfirming what Hanni had already said using a word with the same meaning.
ADOR tried to drive the narrative as if CEO Min Hee-jin created the frame by exaggerating the difference between “Just pretend you don’t know her and walk past” and “Ignore her.” However, since both expressions have the same meaning, CEO Min Hee-jin’s “Ignore her” can be seen as a natural expression to reconfirm Hanni’s message.
3.2.3. CEO Min Hee-jin’s questions were efforts for accurate fact-checking, not leading questions
Throughout the conversation, CEO Min Hee-jin’s questions were efforts to accurately understand what Hanni went through and to help her.
CEO Min Hee-jin asked the following question to accurately grasp what the point was where Hanni felt strange.
17) Hanni – 10:37 PM
Reply to “But what is the point where you felt strange?” That the manager said such things…
When Hanni said ‘the manager’s remark was the strangest point’, she asked again to reconfirm her understanding.
18) Min Hee-jin – 10:37 PM
“Ignore her”19) Min Hee-jin – 10:37 PM
This?
Reading CEO Min Hee-jin’s reconfirmation, Hanni expressed her feelings once again.
20) Hanni – 10:37 PM
Just… there’s no need for us to do that among ourselves21) Hanni – 10:38 PM
It just felt a bit off personally because the manager said something like that
Subsequent questions also appear to be for confirming the situation Hanni experienced more clearly, and the conversation after that was not disclosed.
23) Min Hee-jin – 10:39 PM
Did everyone ignore you?25) Min Hee-jin – 10:39 PM
Did all ILLIT members ignore you?
As can be seen from the above, CEO Min Hee-jin’s questions were not leading questions. Rather, they showed a responsible and empathetic attitude trying to understand the part Hanni struggled with the most, and at every stage, Hanni expressed her experience clearly.
3.3. ADOR’s Intentional Distortion of Hanni’s Messages
While expressing discomfort about what happened, Hanni tried to alleviate the situation and ease CEO Min Hee-jin’s worries.
However, ADOR intentionally distorted these expressions of Hanni and reconstructed them as if Hanni said ‘it was not a big deal’ regarding what she experienced.
3.3.1. Hanni clearly expressed discomfort from the beginning
Hanni made it clear from the start that she was offended by the incident and honestly confided her feelings of discomfort and confusion.
17) Hanni – 10:37 PM
Reply to “But what is the point where you felt strange?”
That the manager said such things…20) Hanni – 10:37 PM
Just… there’s no need for us to do that among ourselves21) Hanni – 10:38 PM
It just felt a bit off personally because the manager said something like that
Through the messages above, it can be confirmed that Hanni felt uncomfortable at the time of the incident, which directly contradicts ADOR’s interpretation.
3.3.2. Hanni tried to calm her own emotions and CEO Min Hee-jin
At the same time, Hanni sent the following messages to control her emotions and relieve CEO Min Hee-jin’s worries.
27) Hanni
Rather than feeling bad about it, slightly… honestly speaking, it was funny29) Hanni
Because I really don’t care about those people at all30) Hanni – 11:18 PM
If you are worrying about that, you don’t have to!!
However, ignoring all the contexts above, ADOR claimed through Hanni’s Messages 27, 29, and 30 that Hanni was not hurt and spoke as if ‘it is not a matter to make a big deal out of’.
3.3.3. Meaning of “Funny” (웃겼어요)
The part where Hanni said the situation was “honestly speaking, funny” clearly means it was absurd/ridiculous when considering the context. It was not an expression of enjoyment, but pointing out how dumbfounding the manager’s behavior was.
27) Hanni
Rather than feeling bad about it, slightly… honestly speaking, it was funny28) Hanni
Ah, I felt once again that we are working with really good people
Ut-gi-da
「Verb」
- To make someone happy, satisfied, or laugh. Causative form of ‘laugh’.
- For an event or appearance to be pathetic and dumbfounding.
– Standard Korean Language Dictionary, Entry ‘Ut-gi-da’
ADOR intentionally distorted the meaning of the remark to argue that Hanni did not take the incident seriously. However, considering the context, ADOR’s conclusion cannot be reached by any interpretation.
3.4 Hanni’s Core Issue Raised Was Always the ‘Manager’s’ Behavior
Throughout the conversation, Hanni consistently pointed out the manager’s behavior as the core issue. Even when disclosing this incident later, Hanni did not specify the group name ‘ILLIT’ and made it clear that the ILLIT members greeted her at first.
However, contrary to Hanni’s intention, ADOR attempted to shift the focus to the ILLIT members, appearing to blur the essence of the problem.
Through this, ADOR was able to achieve the following effects:
- Misleading the essence of the problem from the inappropriate remarks and attitude of a ‘manager’ from another label to a ‘greeting’ problem between fellow artists.
- Forming a frame as if Hanni is the ‘perpetrator’ and ILLIT members are the ‘victims’.
- Provoking the ILLIT fandom to form hostility towards Hanni and NewJeans.
3.4.1. Hanni repeatedly stated that the core problem was the ‘Manager’s Behavior’
Hanni clearly pointed out the manager’s inappropriate behavior and rather showed an empathetic attitude towards the ILLIT members.
20) Hanni – 10:37 PM
Just… there’s no need for us to do that among ourselves21) Hanni – 10:38 PM
It just felt a bit off personally because the manager said something like that26) Hanni – 11:04 PM
see i totally understand why the girls would be uncomfortable and awkward when they see us because there’s been so much rivalry between our teams in the media and inside the company so i fully get that
3.4.2 ADOR disclosed the ILLIT member’s behavior to mislead the essence of the incident
In the materials they submitted, ADOR released the remarks without masking, which the NewJeans side had edited to protect the ILLIT members.
9) Hanni – 10:36 PM
So as they walked past, that manager didn’t look at me at all, and one member kept looking towards that manager and said “Yes, yes!”… something like “I’ll just pretend I don’t know her,” I think they said something like tha
The NewJeans side masked and released the above content to avoid causing harm to the ILLIT members, but the ADOR side released the relevant part without masking, reconstructing it into a composition of ‘NewJeans vs. ILLIT’ or ‘Hanni vs. ILLIT’.
Such actions by ADOR ignored Hanni’s efforts to protect the ILLIT members and at the same time exposed both Hanni and ILLIT directly to public criticism.
3.5. ADOR’s Indifference to Continuous Secondary Victimization Faced by Hanni
ADOR quoted the KakaoTalk conversation claiming that what Hanni went through was not a big deal, and dismissed the incident (‘Ignore Her’ incident) as too trivial to justify contract termination.
However, Hanni and the NewJeans members did not push for contract termination simply because of this incident alone, but because of the continuous damage and unreasonable treatment following the incident.
After the KakaoTalk conversation:
- Hanni reported the incident to HR
Reported what she experienced within the company through formal procedures. - Company’s delayed response and destruction of evidence
Raised the issue immediately after the incident but faced a delayed response.
Received a reply that the CCTV footage containing the problematic scene was deleted.
Attempted to shift the responsibility to Hanni by saying things like ‘You should have told us sooner’ or ‘It’s too late so the video was deleted’. - Dismissal of CEO Min Hee-jin
CEO Min Hee-jin, who supported Hanni and was active in solving the problem, was dismissed. - Hanni and NewJeans feeling a hostile atmosphere against them
The ‘Ignore Her’ incident
malicious posts about NewJeans on HYBE’s Blind app
HYBE PR disparaging NewJeans’ achievements
and many other diverse problems existed.
“And it’s not just that, now the company? There was a certain atmosphere I felt within the company. But since it’s an atmosphere, it’s very vague to say something about it. And it’s hard to tell anyone because honestly, it’s a feeling that only those who have been subjected to it can feel…… For example, the incident I mentioned earlier with that manager, and recently I saw company employees badmouthing NewJeans on an app called Blind. And I also heard a recording where a director in the company’s PR team was trying to lower our Japanese debut results and doing reverse viral marketing. But seeing those things, the atmosphere I felt wasn’t just a feeling, and I honestly became convinced that our company hates us.” – 241015 National Assembly Audit
As ADOR claims, the ‘Ignore Her’ remark alone might not have been legal grounds for contract termination, but the continuous abuse and hostile atmosphere that followed, the agency’s indifference to problem-solving and artist protection, and the mental damage caused by all of this can be seen as clear grounds for termination.
2025-03-07: Hanni’s Instagram Story
🔗 2025-03-07 njz_official Instagram Story
저는 정확히 다 기억하고 있어요. 아까 법정에서 말하고 싶었지만 참았습니다.
(I remember everything clearly. I wanted to say it in court earlier, but I held back.)
제가 직접 쓴 메시지인데, 어떻게 대화의 단편적인 부분만 떼어내서 당신들 입맛에 맞게 의미를 왜곡할 수 있나요? 우리를 위하는 회사인 척하면서 말이죠.
(how can u take one part of a conversation and shift the meaning of it to benefit your point of view when I was the one that wrote that message. whilst you present yourself as company that wants the best for us.)
제발 저를 그만 좀 괴롭히세요 어도어와 하이브
(Please stop tormenting me, ADOR and HYBE.)
드릴 말씀은 많습니다만, 사안을 불필요하게 확대시킬 필요는 없다고 판단하여 그동안 말을 아껴왔습니다. 하지만 기존의 사실 왜곡을 넘어, 저희에 대한 허위 주장을 계속하신다면 저 또한 더 이상 침묵으로만 대응하지는 않겠습니다.
(i have a lot to say but i’ve been holding back simply because i don’t see the need to have to escalate this issue any bigger than it already is. but if you think u have the audacity to make even more false assumptions about us then you already have….. than i won’t stay quiet)
2025-03-21: [Case No. 2025KAHAP20037] Decision on Injunction to Preserve Agency Status and Prohibit Advertising Contracts
🔗 Decision on Case No. 2025KAHAP20037: Injunction to Preserve Agency Status and Prohibit Advertising Contracts
🔗 njz_pr Instagram Post
Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 50 ruled in favor of ADOR, granting the Injunction to Preserve Agency Status and Prohibit Advertising Contracts filed by ADOR against NJZ (formerly NewJeans).
In response, NJZ posted the following position statement, announcing their plans to appeal.
Hello, this is NJZ.
The court’s decision regarding the injunction was issued today. We, NJZ, respect the court’s decision. However, we believe this decision failed to sufficiently consider the fact that the members’ trust in ADOR has been completely shattered. Due to the nature of provisional dispositions, which must proceed swiftly, the decision was reached approximately two weeks after the examination date on March 7, 2025, and as a result, there was insufficient opportunity to fully explain the specific facts to the court. Furthermore, due to information asymmetry, ADOR and HYBE possess all information regarding the members’ entertainment activities, whereas the members must individually contact relevant personnel to request information. There were also instances where many individuals were unable to cooperate due to the pressure and fear of retaliation for being involved in the lawsuit.
Regarding today’s injunction decision, we plan to address additional issues through an objection procedure and will continue the legal battle by supplementing evidentiary materials to the fullest extent possible. Above all, while the members have faithfully fulfilled their contracts until the point of exclusive contract termination and have committed no fault, ADOR and its backer HYBE have consistently treated the members in a discriminatory and unfair manner, destroying our trust. We believe it is only a matter of time before the truth is clearly revealed.
An injunction is a temporary decision. A main lawsuit to confirm the validity of the exclusive contract is also underway between ADOR and the members, and we will once again clarify that the contract was legally terminated at the hearing scheduled for April 3. Unlike the injunction process, the main lawsuit allows for more liberal use of systems under the Civil Procedure Act to secure necessary evidence. We expect that the evidence supporting the members’ claims will be significantly bolstered through this process.
The NJZ members are going through a difficult time, but as we have always done, we are striving to overcome this situation with composure and calm, especially for Bunnies and all those who support NJZ. Above all, NJZ values its promises to fans, and we intend to do our best in the remaining legal proceedings so that we can communicate with our fans with a more joyful heart. As we have repeatedly stated, we reiterate that regardless of financial issues, we cannot remain with an agency that has insulted our character and disparaged our achievements. The reason we are pursuing this lawsuit is to protect our value and human rights.
Meanwhile, regarding ComplexCon scheduled for March 23, we have inevitably decided to participate after much deliberation to prevent unforeseen harm to the fans who are looking forward to the concert and the many staff members involved.
Please continue to watch over us and give us your support.
2025-03-26: BBC Interview
🔗 2025-03-26 BBC, “The row that rocked K-pop: NewJeans tell BBC why they spoke out”
Hanni addressed the “Ignore Her” incident during the interview.
She accused ADOR of withholding crucial evidence related to the incident. She expressed frustration that only partial CCTV footage and selected messages were made public to misrepresent the situation.
“ADOR did not reveal the entire truth of the incident, but only released some CCTV footage that was favorable to them.” – Hanni
Hanni also expressed concern about the situation’s impact on ILLIT, but maintained her stance against workplace harassment, emphasising the need to speak out for a safe environment for all employees.
“To be completely honest, we’re not that comfortable about constantly bringing up the situation, because we know it involves another team, and we don’t want to affect that team in any way, ’cause, you know, there’s no need for that. There really is no need for that. But if you don’t express how you’re feeling and what you’re thinking, people don’t know. And people would have just believed what was going on in the media.” – Hanni
2025-07-24: ADOR v. NewJeans: Third Hearing of Lawsuit to Confirm Validity of Exclusive Contract
During the third hearing of the main lawsuit, the NJZ (formerly NewJeans) side emphasized once again that the core of the “Ignore Her” Incident is not a simple matter of “whether greetings were exchanged,” but rather “systematic ostracism and ignoring” within the company and “destruction of evidence.”
“What we are concerned about is that Hanni‘s greeting controversy might sound like a childish story about hierarchy between K-pop seniors and juniors or about simple greetings.”
“However, that is not the case. We mentioned the greeting controversy as circumstantial evidence of systematic ostracism and ignoring directed at the defendants within HYBE subsidiaries. What we find more problematic is not the act of failing to greet itself, but that in the process of clarifying the incident and identifying the facts, they deleted the video that could have proven Hanni’s account and framed Hanni as a liar.”
“It is not just about the failure to greet; we are taking issue with the series of events that occurred during the process of destroying [the evidence]. Therefore, ADOR has missed the point.”