On the afternoon of May 15, the 12th Civil Division of the Seoul Western District Court held the sixth hearing for BELIFT LAB’s 2 billion KRW damages lawsuit against former ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin, who is currently the head of OOAK Records.
Previously, during HYBE’s audit investigation in April 2024, Min Hee Jin stated that conflict arose because “ILLIT copied NewJeans in every aspect.” In response, BELIFT LAB strongly denied the allegations and filed the lawsuit in June of the same year.
During the hearing, Min Hee Jin’s legal representative argued that BELIFT LAB’s claims essentially revolved around the idea that ILLIT had followed NewJeans in many ways. The representative stated that Min’s comments were not part of a deliberate media strategy, but rather remarks made while responding emotionally to what they described as an illegal “witch hunt” tied to the management takeover accusations.
The defense further argued that Min’s statements did not constitute false information and were simply expressions of opinion, something they claimed had already been recognized in previous rulings. They emphasized that Min made the remarks from the perspective of the CEO responsible for managing NewJeans.
Min’s side also pushed back against what they called a “copyright frame,” explaining that Min’s use of the word “copy” referred to imitation or resemblance, not legal copyright infringement. According to the defense, the discussion centered around similarities in styling, public appearances, photoshoots, and presentation concepts.
The legal team added that the perception of ILLIT resembling NewJeans was not exclusive to Min Hee Jin, claiming that journalists and music industry experts had already formed similar opinions publicly.
BELIFT LAB strongly rejected those arguments, insisting the core issue was Min Hee Jin allegedly damaging ILLIT’s reputation while attempting to pursue personal interests related to NewJeans.
The company’s legal representative argued that evidence, including KakaoTalk messages, suggested premeditated planning involving communication with NewJeans’ parents and reporters. BELIFT LAB claimed Min was fully aware of the potential consequences her statements would have on young idols like ILLIT.
They further criticized the press conference Min Hee Jin held in 2024, describing the large-scale media event and YouTube livestream as a calculated and highly damaging act.
BELIFT LAB also denied ever framing the issue strictly as a “copyright dispute.” The company argued that Min, as an experienced K-pop industry professional, understood how choreography and concepts are naturally built from common foundational elements within the industry.
According to BELIFT LAB, Min allegedly proceeded with the plagiarism accusations despite being advised that proving copyright infringement would be difficult, which they claimed demonstrated malicious intent.
After both sides exchanged arguments multiple times, Min Hee Jin’s representatives denied accusations that the press conference had been carefully planned as part of a public opinion campaign.
The defense argued that discussions shown in private KakaoTalk messages reflected hypothetical thoughts and personal conversations rather than executed plans. They stressed that none of the alleged media manipulation strategies were actually carried out.
Min’s side also claimed that before the controversial press conference, over 1,700 articles portraying her negatively had already been published, contributing to severe emotional distress.
They explained that the controversial remarks about ILLIT only occupied around five minutes of a two-hour press conference and emerged while Min was desperately attempting to defend herself amid intense scrutiny.
The defense additionally argued that while individual similarities in choreography, styling, photoshoots, or debut presentation methods may exist independently, the issue was the accumulation of similarities as a whole.
According to Min’s side, public discussions about ILLIT resembling NewJeans had already been widespread online before Min publicly addressed the matter.
BELIFT LAB’s representatives responded by accusing the defense of selectively interpreting the facts. They pointed to previous presentations comparing choreography from groups such as GFRIEND and NewJeans, arguing that Min could not claim ownership over all concepts or creative elements.
The company also alleged that Min had spent a long period analyzing which HYBE label or artist could be targeted, ultimately selecting ILLIT. BELIFT LAB referenced KakaoTalk conversations discussing issues such as chart manipulation narratives, contract termination penalties, analyst leaks, and collecting online posts related to plagiarism accusations.
According to BELIFT LAB, these details demonstrated organized planning rather than a legitimate exercise of self-defense.
The next hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled to take place on July 10.
Sources: Daum
You must be logged in to post a comment.