BTS member V clarified that he is not taking sides after a private KakaoTalk conversation with Min Hee-jin was submitted as evidence in the HYBE shareholder lawsuit. Despite his statement, three narratives have emerged online: that he validated similarity claims, that he privately supports Min but cannot say so publicly, and that his comment confirms copying allegations against ILLIT. Here are the confirmed facts and the interpretations shaping the debate.
BTS member V has addressed controversy after a private KakaoTalk exchange between himself and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin was reported to have been submitted as evidence in the ongoing shareholder lawsuit between Min and HYBE.
According to court reporting, the message was adopted as part of the evidentiary record in the first-instance ruling related to Min’s stock purchase payment claim against HYBE. The underlying lawsuit concerns the validity of the shareholder agreement between Min and HYBE, including her contractual put option.
The reported excerpt of the conversation included V stating that he had seen the ongoing controversy and felt that certain aspects “seemed similar.” The comment has been widely circulated online in connection with public debate over alleged similarities between ILLIT and NewJeans.
Following media coverage, V issued a statement clarifying his position.
V’s Statement
In his message, V stated that the exchange was part of a private, everyday conversation shared because Min was “someone he knows.” He emphasized that he had no intention of taking either side in the dispute.
He further expressed that he was “very taken aback” that the private conversation had been submitted as court evidence without his consent.
Notably, V did not directly refer to Min Hee-jin by name in his statement. Instead, he used the term “지인,” which in Korean refers to someone known personally but does not necessarily imply close affiliation.
HYBE’s Official Clarification
HYBE subsequently released a statement to media outlets clarifying that V’s comment was made in a context of empathy and did not constitute agreement with any specific claims.
The agency stated that it had confirmed V was not endorsing any particular allegation and that he wished to express dissatisfaction over the use of a private conversation in court materials without his consent.
Legal Context
Under South Korean civil procedure, trials are public in principle. However, specific documents may be subject to restricted inspection if they contain sensitive information.
In civil litigation, a party may generally submit conversations in which they participated as evidence, provided the material was lawfully obtained. The law does not require consent from both participants for evidentiary submission in such cases.
The lawsuit itself centers on shareholder rights and contractual obligations, including the exercise of a put option clause. It is not a separate legal proceeding determining plagiarism.
Public Reaction and Ongoing Debate
Online discussion has centered on three primary interpretations of V’s message.
The first narrative, widely circulated among supporters of Min Hee-jin, frames V’s comment that certain elements “felt similar” as reinforcing her public position regarding similarities between ILLIT and NewJeans. In this interpretation, V’s stature as a member of BTS is cited as lending credibility to the argument that the similarity concerns were not unfounded or fabricated.
A second narrative suggests that V privately sympathizes with Min Hee-jin but is constrained from expressing explicit support due to his contractual relationship with HYBE. Proponents of this view interpret his statement that he is “not taking sides” as a necessary public position rather than a definitive rejection of alignment.
A third narrative has focused on using V’s remark as indirect confirmation of copying allegations against ILLIT. In some online communities, his words have been cited as authoritative validation of similarity claims, and the comment has been invoked in criticism directed at the group.
In parallel, several Korean media outlets have raised concerns about the broader implications of private artist communications being introduced in corporate litigation. Commentators have noted that the inclusion of personal messages involving high-profile artists may amplify reputational impact beyond the scope of the shareholder dispute itself, particularly when excerpts are circulated without full conversational context.
Korean media outlets have also reported concerns about the broader implications of private artist communications being drawn into corporate litigation.
As of now, HYBE has filed an appeal against the first-instance ruling in the shareholder case. The legal process remains ongoing.
The situation highlights the intersection of corporate litigation, artist privacy, and public interpretation in high-profile entertainment disputes. At present, the confirmed facts remain limited to the evidentiary submission of a private exchange, V’s clarification of his intent, and HYBE’s official response.
