The damages lawsuit between former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin and BELIFT Lab has entered a critical stage, with the fourth hearing held on November 14. This is not a standalone controversy — it is the legal consequence of Min’s months-long plagiarism narrative against BELIFT’s rookie girl group ILLIT, a narrative the court has already confirmed she cannot substantiate.
Why This Lawsuit Exists
This case began when Min Hee-jin publicly accused BELIFT Lab’s new girl group ILLIT of copying New Jeans. She repeated this accusation in a press conference and formal written statements, portraying herself as sounding an alarm on “creative theft.”
However, BELIFT says she fabricated this narrative for strategic gain:
- To damage HYBE’s reputation before an audit
- To pressure HYBE into renegotiating ADOR’s shareholder agreement
- To position herself as indispensable and raise her bargaining power
- To frame BELIFT and ILLIT as unethical, using anonymous online comments and edited clips
The alleged harm was significant — especially to a rookie group with no established fandom and minor members. BELIFT is suing for ₩2 billion (≈ $1.48 million USD) in damages. Min has countersued for ₩5 billion (≈ $3.7 million USD).
Below is everything that unfolded during the fourth hearing, which took place after the court ruled that:
- ADOR did not breach New Jeans’ contracts, and
- Min’s plagiarism claims are not legally recognized.
BELIFT Lab’s Argument: A Deliberate Public-Opinion War Planned Before ILLIT’s Debut
The 12th Civil Affairs Division of the Seoul Western District Court heard PPT presentations and oral arguments from both sides. BELIFT stated that Min engineered a public-opinion war long before HYBE audited her and before ILLIT debuted.
They argued that:
Min’s true objective was profit maximization and control of ADOR, and ILLIT — young, newly debuted, and defenseless — became collateral damage.
BELIFT claims that as early as February 2024, Min began planning:
- How to “corner HYBE”
- How to create negative public sentiment
- How to craft a narrative that ILLIT “copied” New Jeans
- How to use media outlets and anonymous comments to amplify outrage
They presented a timeline of messages and internal notes:
February 4, 2024: “In the end, I have to use the media.”
March 2, 2024 (ILLIT concept film release): Min calculated potential penalties if New Jeans terminated their exclusive contract.
March 18, 2024 (ILLIT teaser drop): Min received a report that VP Lee had shown an analyst an edited video disparaging ILLIT to prompt a HYBE stock “sell report.”
March 28–31, 2024: Min directed VP Lee to refine wording for protest emails, explore leaks to reporters, and prepare for “our public opinion war.”
Above are some of the Min Heejin’s kakatalk messages presented in court the reveals various stages of her plans to take over ADOR and separate it from HYBE.
Using ILLIT as a Scapegoat
BELIFT argued that Min intentionally targeted ILLIT, believing:
- They were too new to defend themselves
- They had no sizable fandom to counter backlash
- Negative framing would stick easily
They stressed:
“ILLIT was the most vulnerable target in HYBE Labels. Min knew this.”
They described extensive damage to ILLIT after Min’s press conference:
- Sharp drop in album orders
- Canceled filming schedules
- Suspended advertising deals
- Members suffering malicious comments
- Shift in online keywords from “support” and “cute” to “plagiarism,” “poor,” and “controversy”
BELIFT said these were the direct outcomes of Min’s actions — outcomes she predicted and allegedly intended.
KakaoTalk Messages Presented as Evidence
A major turning point in the hearing was the release of KakaoTalk messages between Min and her vice president. They show conversations in which Min:
- Instructed him to create scripts claiming multiple groups copied New Jeans
- Requested phrases like “It’d be hard without Min Hee-jin”
- Urged him to identify ways to “harass HYBE”
- Prodded him to find issues tied to the Fair Trade Commission and National Tax Service
- Directed him to plan a public-opinion war
- Coordinated how to edit ILLIT shorts into defamatory video packages
- Discussed how journalists could be led into amplifying allegations
These messages are critical because BELIFT says they reveal intent — not artistic concern, but a plan to manipulate public perception.
One highlighted line from VP Lee:
“I’m still thinking about how I can feed HYBE some sh*t.”
Min replied by instructing him on which government issues HYBE “should be afraid of.”
Another internal file titled “Project 1945”, created on March 2, included plans for:
- “Music chart manipulation + FTC”
- Framing HYBE negatively
- Media strategies
This was weeks before ILLIT debuted on March 25, 2024.
BELIFT Says Min Sought to Influence Shareholder Negotiations
BELIFT reiterated the core motive:
They say Min tried to create a narrative in which:
- HYBE was unethical
- Min was the righteous whistleblower
- New Jeans was vulnerable and under attack
- ILLIT was a corporate attempt to “replace” New Jeans
BELIFT stated that Min encouraged this fear among New Jeans’ parents too, making them believe a copycat group was being promoted over their children.
Min’s Position: “It Was the Public, Not Me”
Min’s defense repeated several claims:
- “Similarity was pointed out by the public first.”
- “My statements were for New Jeans’ protection.”
- “I was fulfilling my CEO responsibility.”
- “Even HYBE employees privately said they saw similarities.”
Min also complained that including KakaoTalk messages in public PPT was “invasion of privacy,” though the court noted procedural issues rather than evidentiary concerns.
Court’s Position: Referenced Prior Ruling Against Min
BELIFT highlighted that in the ADOR vs. New Jeans contract case, the court already ruled:
- There is no legal basis for calling ILLIT a plagiarism case
- A group’s “concept” is not protected intellectual property
- Min cannot legally support a plagiarism allegation
This aligns with BELIFT’s argument that the plagiarism narrative was built on:
- Anonymous comments
- Edited shorts
- Selective framing
- Intentional timing
BELIFT said:
“Min did not raise concerns after objective analysis. She created concerns for public consumption.”
Impact on ILLIT
BELIFT again emphasized that ILLIT became the prime victim.
“They were the youngest, most defenseless, and easiest to attack.”
The company presented keyword data showing the shift in sentiment pre- and post-press conference, arguing that Min’s actions inflicted:
- Tangible financial losses
- Reputational damage
- Long-term career harm
Min claimed album sales naturally taper off and argued that HYBE’s “public-opinion war” against her was harsher than anything she said about others.
Min Was Criticized by the Court
The judge reprimanded Min’s side for submitting key documents on the day of the hearing, preventing BELIFT from preparing a rebuttal.
The court stated:
“From now on, submissions must come a week in advance.”
Next Court Date
January 9, 2026 at 4:00 PM KST
