Plagiarizing ILLIT, taking out NewJeans...3 different conclusions on the same issue [the context of Yun Sang-geun]

*This content was translated by AI.

Did the judge's discretion go in. Or is it just a difference in legal interpretation. A subtly different ruling was made on the same issue.

The Seoul Central District Court's Civil Agreement Department 31 (Director Nam In-soo, hereinafter referred to as Civil Agreement Department 31) held a court ruling on the 12th to confirm the termination of the inter-shareholder contract filed by Hive against former CEO Min Hee-jin and a stock sale price lawsuit filed by former CEO Min Hee-jin against Hive, saying, "Hive's claim is dismissed, and Hive will bear the cost of the lawsuit. In addition, Min Hee-jin's exercise of put options is justified, and Hive should pay an amount worth 25.5 billion won.

Prior to this, the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Agreement Department 41 (Minister Jeong Hoe-il, hereinafter referred to as Civil Agreement Department 41) held a trial date for the validity of the exclusive contract filed by ADOR against five NewJeans members on October 30, 2025, and ruled in favor of ADOR, saying, "The exclusive contract is confirmed to be valid. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the defendant," he said.

The two lawsuits are disputes between former CEO Min Hee-jin and Hive, and between NewJeans and ADOR, respectively, and the issues of the lawsuit are different due to the validation of exclusive contracts and the termination of contracts between shareholders. However, it drew more attention in that it fought on the basis of a series of events and issues, including the resignation of former CEO Min Hee-jin and NewJeans in April 2024, the resignation of former CEO Min Hee-jin as ADOR leader, plagiarism of ILLIT, and controversy over taking out NewJeans.

First of all, the Civil Agreement Department 41 stated that although there were some similarities with ILLIT's plagiarism claims, it is difficult to see them as plagiarism, and said, "It is difficult for ILLIT to replicate the concept of NewJeans, and there is no evidence to admit it." He also added, "The concept of female idol groups is difficult to see as publicity rights or intellectual property rights, and it is difficult to say that the ADOR seriously violated the contract just because it did not respond."

On the other hand, the Civil Agreement Department 31 said, "According to a report, one person left before the debut of the ILLIT and became a quintet, and the form of not highlighting the main vocal and taking the boundaries of the position vaguely is similar to that of the NewJeans," adding, "Even if the parents of the NewJeans raised the issue of copy through a petition, even if Min Hee-jin persuaded the parents of the NewJeans to submit a petition, the petition itself was written by the parents, so their argument cannot be admitted as an opinion on similarity, which is a mistake in the premise of facts." In addition, "When the teaser for ILLIT's debut was released, it is estimated that CEO Billifrap is aware of the similarity issue to some extent, but there seems to be no data to be considered that Billifrap or Hive discussed or asked for understanding with ADOR in advance." It seems that he raised the suspicion of copying to the effect that he had never agreed to introduce ILLIT as a younger brother group of NewJeans. It is difficult to say that Bilibrap has failed to provide more evidence for the refutation that it is "not similar" and that the controversy has completely subsided. Even if the stickiness of this concept does not receive legal protection, the controversy over the copy raised by Min Hee-jin seems to be a problem that must be resolved through social public debate," he said.

If you look closely, there is a subtle difference between the judgment that "there is no evidence of reproduction" and the judgment that "there is no evidence to refute that it is not similar."

Regarding the "justification of Min Hee-jin's dismissal process," which was one of the key issues of the ruling, the Civil Agreement Department 41 stated, "It is difficult to see the issue as a result of unfair audit," and directly cited the Kakao Talk conversation between Min Hee-jin and former vice president of ADOR Lee Sang-woo as evidence.

Among them, he said, "It's hard for them (Hive) and we get freedom," and added, "Change the plan, pull the timing." I don't talk about the media here. We're going to sue for public opinion. Based on the comment, "I burst it after seeing the answer," the court pointed out, "Min Hee-jin conducted a public opinion war and preparation for litigation in advance with the intention of independent ADOR, including NewJeans, from Hib."

There were also "investor contacts and public opinion-building activities with the parents of members." This is sufficient as a reason for the initiation of an audit by the ADOR. It is a circumstance that Min Hee-jin may have intended to take NewJeans and become independent, and ADOR's initiation of an audit was a response to such a plan, he said. In addition, Min Hee-jin's attempt to "take out NewJeans" was not intended to protect the NewJeans from the ADOR's failure to comply with its exclusive contract obligations.

Department 31 of the Civil Agreement also said, "It is recognized that Min Hee-jin has sought a way to independently dominate ADOR. "It seems that he planned to leave the ADOR with consent in anticipation of the breakdown of negotiations on the contract between shareholders," he said. However, this fact alone cannot be considered a serious violation of the contract between shareholders, and "Min Hee-jin's departure is a serious reason, but it is difficult to judge whether it will be an empty shell or not based on the contents submitted. Assuming that it becomes an empty shell, if it is not compensated properly, I will exercise the put option and go out and make a men's NewJeans." It seems that he tried to buy his stake in ADOR at a low price, saying that if the negotiations break down, it becomes an empty shell if he exercises the put option. In addition, all of these measures were based on Hive's consent, and if Hive does not agree, these measures will have no effect."

In particular, even though CEO Park Ji-won of Hive heard that Min Hee-jin was meeting with outside investors at the time, he did not take any action until he received complaints from parents of NewJeans. "If we thought that the method of trying to go public by mobilizing external private equity funds violated the contract between shareholders, there would have been action, and there may have been room for determining that it was not a serious violation of obligations," he said.

Considering the issue of "taking out Min Hee-jin's NewJeans," there is also a confrontation between the judgment that "there was a public opinion battle and preparation for litigation (to take it out)," and that "it is difficult to conclude that he tried to take it out only by saying "empty shell"."

Earlier, in the same vein as the issue of "taking out NewJeans," the Civil Agreement Department 41 acknowledged the legitimacy of Min Hee-jin's dismissal process and judged, "Min Hee-jin prepared for public opinion and litigation in advance with the intention of independent ADOR, including NewJeans, and there were also investor contacts and public opinion formation activities with parents of members."

On the other hand, the Civil Agreement Department 31 said, "We believe that both Min Hee-jin's press conference and the announcement of the official position after that are based on the two sides' right to object," adding, "Considering that the allegations of copying and pushing appear justified and possible conflicts of interest between shareholders, the conflict was expressed by invoking the right to audit after raising the issue through internal e-mails."

In other words, there is a confrontation between the judgment that "Min Hee-jin planned to prepare for public opinion and litigation" and that "the conflict has come to the surface by invoking the right to audit after raising the internal e-mail issue."

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.