Source Music and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin are locked in a heated legal battle over statements made during a past press conference, with each side accusing the other of misrepresentation. While Source Music claims Min spread false information that damaged the company’s reputation, Min’s legal team argues her remarks were defensive responses to HYBE’s internal audit and subsequent media coverage, and that only selective excerpts were taken out of context to frame the issue as defamation.
On the afternoon of December 19, the Civil Division 12 of the Seoul Western District Court held the fifth hearing in Source Music’s 500 million KRW damages lawsuit against Min Hee-jin.
Previously, Source Music filed the suit alleging that Min, during press conferences last year, falsely claimed she personally cast the members of NewJeans, accused Source Music of neglecting the trainees, and asserted that HYBE broke promises regarding debut order. Source Music maintains these remarks harmed its reputation and has submitted evidence such as trainee contract videos and internal messages to counter the claims, emphasizing that the selection of NewJeans members was led by Source Music.
Min’s legal team countered that her statements were not false facts but reflections of her personal experience and perspective regarding her contributions to NewJeans’ debut. They argued that the term “casting” itself can be interpreted in multiple ways and that her comments should be assessed within their full context. The defense also questioned whether any actual damages occurred and whether there was a direct causal link between the statements and the alleged harm.
During the hearing, Min’s attorney stated that the plaintiff is focusing on only a small portion of a press conference that lasted nearly two hours. Min’s attorney argued that the press conference was Min’s response to HYBE’s audit and what she viewed as unfair media play, making it one of the few defensive measures available to her at the time. According to the defense, Source Music selectively extracted and edited parts of her remarks, ignoring the broader context, and then claimed defamation based on those fragments. The attorney further noted that Source Music repeatedly adjusted its stance on branding and casting-related claims, suggesting inconsistency in how Min’s remarks were being interpreted.
Source Music’s legal team rejected this argument, asserting that whether the remarks were part of a larger statement or relayed from third parties does not negate the possibility of defamation. They emphasized that repeating information heard from others does not exempt one from responsibility. The plaintiff also disputed Min’s claim that her work was delayed due to a lack of music or concept materials from Source Music, explaining that there is no single correct method in girl group production. According to Source Music, concepts can be developed either after music is created or by first identifying the artists’ strengths and building musical direction around them. They argued that Min’s perspective likely stems from her lack of experience overseeing a project entirely from its earliest stages.
As the legal dispute continues, the case highlights deep divisions over creative authority, responsibility, and interpretation of public statements within the K-pop industry, with the court set to further examine whether Min Hee-jin’s remarks crossed the line from personal defense into actionable defamation.
Sources: Daum
You must be logged in to post a comment.