Belift Lab and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin have clashed once again in court over controversial remarks regarding ILLIT copying NewJeans.
On the afternoon of the 15th, the Seoul Western District Court held the 6th pleading date for a 2 billion won damages lawsuit filed by Belift Lab against Min Hee-jin (currently CEO of OK Records).
During the proceedings, the court decided not to accept some of the witness requests from the plaintiff. The court stated it would make a comprehensive judgment after reviewing document submission orders and additional evidence. Noting that “both sides are strongly opposed,” the court ordered both parties to submit a comprehensive summary of their legal theories and the details of the damages.
The core issue is whether Min’s statement that “ILLIT copied NewJeans” was a simple expression of opinion or the statement of false facts. Min’s side argued that the remarks were an “exercise of defense rights” during a management dispute. They claimed, “While the plaintiff submitted nearly 200 pages of evidence, the core is that ‘ILLIT is overall following NewJeans.’ This wasn’t for media play, but an expression of feelings while being attacked like a witch hunt within a frame of management usurpation.”
They further emphasized, “The expression ‘copy’ means imitating or mimicking, not copyright infringement.” They argued it was an opinion on the overall impression, including outfits, choreography points, appearances at official events, and pictorial concepts. They added that the idea of ILLIT resembling NewJeans was first raised by the media, industry, and online communities, and that previous rulings have recognized such statements as expressions of opinion.
Conversely, Belift Lab countered that the remarks were not a simple opinion but a planned public relations war. Belift Lab claimed, “The defendant targeted ILLIT while trying to take NewJeans away for personal gain and pressure the parent company.” They argued that evidence of contacting NewJeans’ parents, reporters, and preparing a PR war was revealed through KakaoTalk conversations.
Specifically, Belift Lab described Min’s behavior by saying, “There are signs that the target was searched for over a long period, like a lion looking for prey in the Serengeti,” and claimed that “ILLIT was eventually the chosen target.”
They pointed out, “The defendant is an expert who knows the K-pop industry better than anyone.” They argued that since someone who knows exactly how choreography and concepts are created used the term “copied,” she could have fully anticipated the impact. They also claimed the press conference was planned as a large-scale YouTube live stream, making it a “serious illegal act” rather than a simple exercise of defense rights.
Belift Lab also emphasized, “We have never claimed copyright infringement.” They stated, “The defendant keeps claiming it’s a copyright frame, but the plaintiff is questioning the K-pop industry structure and industry practices.” They added that even if it looks like an expression of opinion, defamation can be established if the underlying facts are false.
They claimed to have sufficiently explained industry realities and choreography composition methods through the 1st and 2nd presentations, providing comparisons between GFRIEND and NewJeans’ choreography, and argued that the defendant’s side has failed to properly refute this.
Regarding the KakaoTalk messages, they emphasized, “Specific circumstances were revealed, such as attempts to frame the situation as ‘chart manipulation,’ contacting investment industry officials, and ordering the collection of online posts.” They argued that since malice and planning were confirmed, this case cannot be viewed the same as other rulings.
In response, Min’s side countered, “The KakaoTalk contents are merely personal conversations and imaginations that were never executed.” They claimed they never actually carried out a PR war and that while they continuously raised issues with HYBE internally, they were met with audits and large-scale reports.
They also argued, “At the time of the press conference, witch-hunt reporting had already continued with over 1,700 articles, and the remarks in question came while answering questions about the multi-label system.” They claimed it was the only way to defend themselves at the time.
The defense further emphasized, “If you look at choreography, outfits, pictorials, and appearance styles separately, there may be similar cases, but there was no other team that reminded people of NewJeans when combining all elements.” They reiterated that the evaluation of ILLIT resembling NewJeans had already been raised by the public and the industry.
The court stated, “There are too many indirect facts related to the case, so if all are examined, it could go on indefinitely,” and said they would conclude the pleadings at an appropriate time. They requested evidence applications and a comprehensive preparatory brief be submitted two weeks before the next date. The next pleading date is set for July 10.
