Seoul Western District Court, Civil Division 12
Presiding Judge: Kim Jin-young
January 9, 2026 — Fifth Hearing
1. Background and Procedural Context
The dispute stems from public remarks made by former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin in 2024 regarding alleged similarities between BELIFT LAB’s rookie girl group ILLIT and ADOR’s NewJeans. Following a press conference held by Min amid HYBE’s internal audit of ADOR, BELIFT LAB filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages for defamation and business interference, arguing that Min’s statements triggered widespread plagiarism allegations against ILLIT and caused reputational and commercial harm.
BELIFT LAB initially filed a ₩2 billion (≈ $1.5 million USD) damages claim in June 2024. Min Hee-jin countersued, seeking ₩500 million (≈ $375,000 USD) each in emotional and financial damages.
The January 9 hearing was conducted as an oral argument session, with only legal representatives present.
2. BELIFT LAB’s Position
BELIFT LAB argued that Min Hee-jin engaged in a deliberate public-opinion campaign designed to damage both ILLIT and HYBE as part of a broader plan to separate NewJeans from HYBE’s control.
According to BELIFT LAB:
- Min Hee-jin intended to pressure HYBE into selling its ADOR shares at a reduced price to friendly investors, enabling her to gain control over NewJeans’ future profits and decision-making.
- She knowingly raised plagiarism allegations because plagiarism is among the most damaging controversies an idol group can face, particularly during debut.
- Internal KakaoTalk messages involving Min and her associates allegedly show that the plagiarism narrative was discussed with journalists before the press conference, contradicting her claim that the issue originated organically from the public or media.
- BELIFT LAB asserted that this planned narrative was a key reason HYBE initiated an internal audit.
- The choice to hold a press conference—rather than pursue internal or legal channels—was intentional, as it maximized dissemination and caused irreversible harm to underage ILLIT members, making the act unlawful and irresponsible.
- BELIFT LAB maintained that ILLIT did not copy NewJeans and that no NewJeans planning materials were referenced or used in ILLIT’s development.
- The plaintiff further argued that Min’s legal stance is internally inconsistent: she claims she spoke as ADOR’s CEO when making the remarks, yet filed her countersuit as a private individual.
- BELIFT LAB also rejected Min’s claim that this is not a copyright dispute, noting that she calculated damages using standards similar to Article 125(1) of the Copyright Act, which does not apply to civil tort cases.
- BELIFT LAB concluded by stating that monetary compensation alone would be sufficient, and that it would not issue apologies, corrections, or public statements.
3. Min Hee-jin’s Defense
Min Hee-jin’s legal team argued that her statements were opinions, not factual accusations of plagiarism.
Her key arguments included:
- She never definitively stated that ILLIT plagiarized NewJeans, but expressed concerns about “imitation” in response to similarities already raised by the public and media.
- The plagiarism issue first emerged from online communities, critics, and journalists after ILLIT’s debut; her comments were made later during a press conference responding to HYBE’s audit.
- BELIFT LAB relies heavily on speculative language such as “planned,” “intended,” and “attempted,” without evidence of concrete actions.
- Most of BELIFT LAB’s evidence consists of KakaoTalk messages that do not demonstrate actual misconduct.
- The term “copy” does not necessarily mean illegal plagiarism and can refer to stylistic imitation.
- Min argued that ILLIT uniquely mirrored NewJeans across multiple areas—including audition branding, choreography highlights, debut strategy, photoshoot color palettes and composition, visual arrangement, fonts, and CD design—and that BELIFT LAB failed to sufficiently rebut these similarities.
- She claimed that NewJeans’ planning materials were, in fact, obtained and referenced, contradicting BELIFT LAB’s position.
- Min rejected allegations that NewJeans’ parents were mobilized as part of a coordinated campaign, stating their actions were voluntary.
- Min’s team characterized the lawsuit as part of a broader pressure strategy, arguing that multiple lawsuits across HYBE labels amount to a coordinated effort to discredit and silence her.
READ: WHY MIN HEEJIN TARGETED ILLIT
4. BELIFT LAB’s Rebuttal
In response, BELIFT LAB reiterated that:
- KakaoTalk records show Min discussed plagiarism allegations with reporters before they became public, undermining her claim that the issue arose externally.
- Evidence suggests NewJeans’ parents were involved in amplifying the controversy.
- While certain choreography elements may appear similar at a glance, such movements are widely used across the idol industry, and detailed execution differs significantly.
- BELIFT LAB stated that Min failed to offer a substantive rebuttal to these technical comparisons.
- BELIFT LAB also questioned Min’s standing as a sole plaintiff, arguing that alleged damages related to ADOR’s business losses cannot be claimed personally.
5. Court’s Position and Next Steps
The presiding judge noted that the BELIFT LAB case overlaps significantly with issues currently under review in another related case (widely interpreted as the Source Music litigation). As a result, the court stated it would pause further substantive examination until a verdict is issued in that proceeding.
A future hearing date was scheduled, and the session concluded in approximately 20 minutes.
6. What the Case Hinges On
At its core, the case centers on whether Min Hee-jin’s public remarks constitute defamation through false statements, or whether they fall within the scope of legitimate opinion and industry critique. The court will also need to assess whether BELIFT LAB’s framing of the dispute as a civil tort—rather than a copyright matter—is legally consistent with the damages being claimed.
The outcome may have broader implications for how far creative executives can go in publicly criticizing rival acts without crossing into unlawful business interference.
