The legal conflict between HYBE subsidiary BELIFT LAB and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin intensified again this week as both sides presented sharply opposing interpretations of Min’s controversial comments about rookie girl group ILLIT.
On May 15, Seoul Western District Court’s Civil Division 12 held another hearing in BELIFT LAB’s ₩2 billion (approximately $1.45 million USD) damages lawsuit against Min.
The case stems from Min’s explosive April 2024 emergency press conference, where she publicly criticized similarities between ILLIT and NewJeans during her broader dispute with HYBE. At one point during the livestreamed press conference, Min asked, “Why did you use our choreography, BELIFT LAB?”
BELIFT LAB later filed suit, arguing that Min’s comments severely damaged ILLIT’s reputation and public image.
Min Hee-jin’s Side: “The Comparisons Already Existed”
During the latest hearing, Min’s legal team argued that comparisons between ILLIT and NewJeans were already circulating publicly before Min spoke about them herself.
According to the defense, journalists and music critics had previously raised concerns about similarities between the two groups, meaning Min was not introducing a new narrative but responding to an existing public discussion.
Her side further argued that Min’s statements were expressions of opinion made from the perspective of someone responsible for managing and protecting NewJeans.
Min’s legal team continues to maintain that her remarks fall under protected opinion rather than defamation.
BELIFT LAB: “ILLIT Became a Strategic Target”
BELIFT LAB rejected that characterization entirely.
The company argued that Min intentionally damaged both ILLIT’s and HYBE’s reputations while attempting to pressure HYBE amid the escalating internal conflict surrounding NewJeans.
According to BELIFT LAB, the attacks on ILLIT were not isolated emotional reactions but part of a broader effort connected to alleged attempts to separate NewJeans from HYBE.
The company claimed KakaoTalk messages and other submitted materials show prior coordination with reporters and discussions involving NewJeans’ parents.
BELIFT LAB additionally argued that Min, as one of the K-pop industry’s most experienced creative executives, fully understood the consequences of publicly accusing another rookie group of “copying.”
The company emphasized that the lawsuit is not fundamentally about copyright infringement itself. Instead, BELIFT LAB argues that Min knowingly used language capable of causing severe reputational and commercial harm in an industry where originality and identity are central to branding.
Financial Analysts, “Plagiarism” Narratives and Reputation Damage
BELIFT LAB also claimed that conversations existed discussing plans to spread “ILLIT plagiarism” allegations to financial analysts and frame HYBE negatively in the market.
The company has repeatedly argued that Min’s public comments went beyond ordinary artistic criticism and crossed into reputational damage designed to weaken confidence in both ILLIT and HYBE.
The hearing also revisited choreography comparisons raised during earlier presentations submitted to the court. BELIFT LAB claimed Min’s side had failed to adequately rebut examples comparing choreography structures between NewJeans and other HYBE groups, including GFRIEND.
The company further criticized the format of Min’s original 2024 press conference itself, arguing that holding it as a livestreamed media event demonstrated a high level of planning and strategic intent.
A Case About More Than Choreography
Although the public debate has often focused on whether ILLIT resembles NewJeans stylistically, the lawsuit itself has evolved into something much broader.
At its core, the case now centers on whether Min knowingly weaponized plagiarism accusations against a rookie group during her wider conflict with HYBE — and whether those comments caused measurable commercial and reputational harm.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for July 10.
