Illit’s agency accuses former Ador CEO of 'strategic media play,' while she counters claims as legitimate professional opinion
The legal dispute between Belift Lab and former Ador CEO Min Hee-jin over plagiarism allegations involving girl groups Illit and NewJeans escalated Friday, as both sides sharply disagreed over whether Min’s public remarks constituted defamation or protected opinion.
During the fifth hearing of a damages lawsuit held at the Seoul Central District Court, Belift Lab argued that Min’s plagiarism claims amounted to a calculated attempt to damage the company and its artists through what it described as a “strategic media play.” Min’s legal team countered that her comments reflected subjective professional judgment, not a legal assertion of plagiarism.
Belift Lab, a Hybe subsidiary and the agency behind Illit, filed the 2 billion won ($1.37 million) lawsuit in June 2024. The company alleges that Min knowingly used plagiarism accusations — widely regarded as one of the most damaging claims in the K-pop industry — to undermine Hybe’s corporate value and strengthen her own position amid an internal dispute.
“The defendant (Min) was fully aware of the impact such allegations would have,” Belift Lab’s legal team said in court, arguing that claims Illit plagiarized NewJeans were false and unsupported. The agency cited private mobile phone messages exchanged between Min and her close associates, which it said contradict her public assertions.
Belift Lab further said that Illit did not reference or copy any internal planning documents related to NewJeans and that Min’s decision to raise the issue publicly through a press conference caused “irreparable harm” to Illit’s members, many of whom are minors. The agency argued this amounted to an unlawful act.
In an earlier hearing last November, Belift Lab also maintained that the elements Min cited — including visual concepts and stylistic choices — fall outside the scope of copyright protection and are common within the industry.
Min’s legal team rejected the allegations, saying her statements had been mischaracterized.
“She never asserted plagiarism in a legal sense,” her lawyers said, arguing that Min referred to “imitation” as a matter of opinion rather than “mechanical reproduction,” which constitutes legal plagiarism.
They presented a list of similarities they claim are distinctive to both groups, including audition branding, choreography points, debut strategies, pictorial color schemes, as well as font and CD design. Min’s lawyers also alleged that Belift Lab had access to internal planning materials, claiming this ultimately led to the devaluation of Ador and financial losses for Min.
The two parties also disputed who was responsible for initiating what Belift Lab described as a “media war.” Belift Lab accused Min of circulating plagiarism allegations to the press ahead of her press conference, while Min’s team argued that discussions about similarities had already surfaced in online communities and among music critics.
“The issue was already being raised publicly,” Min’s legal team said, adding that her remarks were a justified response made in her capacity as NewJeans’ producer. They further argued that if Belift Lab wished to refute the claims, it could submit its original planning documents to the court.
“These statements were a legitimate expression of professional opinion,” Min’s lawyer said.
The court scheduled the sixth hearing for March 27.
jaaykim@heraldcorp.com
