Min Hee-jin wins… Court dismisses damages suits by Belift Lab and Source Music, ruling plagiarism allegations not unlawful [Star Scene]

*This content was translated by AI.View Original

The court ruled in favor of former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin in a total 2.5 billion won damages lawsuit filed by HYBE-affiliated labels Belift Lab and Source Music against her.

On the 13th, the 12th Civil Division of the Seoul Western District Court delivered its verdict in the 2 billion won damages suit filed by Belift Lab against Min Hee-jin, stating, "We dismiss both the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim." Min Hee-jin's 5 billion won counterclaim, which alleged that ILLIT imitated NewJeans, was also not accepted.

In the verdict for Source Music's 500 million won damages suit, which was held on the same day, the court stated, "We dismiss the plaintiff's claim, and the litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff."

In the Belift Lab case, the court noted that "popular culture and art are inherently evaluated subjectively rather than objectively, and freedom of expression should be broadly protected unless it is malicious or significantly lacks proportionality," adding that "statements claiming ILLIT resembles NewJeans do not specify concrete facts but constitute the defendant's subjective opinion."

The court further added, "Holding parties legally liable in situations involving similarity controversies would hinder criticism of creative works and the healthy development of popular art," and stated, "Even if viewed as specifying facts, there is no unlawfulness when considered against the evidence and circumstances."

Regarding the Source Music suit, the court determined that "statements regarding casting and branding are difficult to call false facts, as they imply that the defendant's reputation and influence extended through the selection process up to debut." On the claim that the debut order was changed, the court stated, "According to the records, it has been confirmed that the plaintiff planned to debut NewJeans members first but instead debuted LE SSERAFIM, after which the defendant strongly protested, making it difficult to definitively classify this as a false fact."

Additionally, regarding Min Hee-jin's use of aggressive expressions such as "scumbag," the court explained that while these are vulgar terms used to belittle the other party, they appear to be evaluations directed at HYBE or the debut order, and it is difficult to view them as having hindered the plaintiff's social evaluation or constituting humiliating personal attacks.

Meanwhile, Belift Lab argues that Min Hee-jin's allegations of ILLIT plagiarizing NewJeans, raised through press conferences and other means in April 2024, are false facts. The company maintains that this has caused serious damage not only to the company but also to its affiliated group, ILLIT. In contrast, Min Hee-jin's side has countered that these were legitimate issues raised to protect NewJeans' interests and creative ethics.

The lawsuit with Source Music stemmed from former CEO Min's mention of the entity responsible for casting NewJeans members and issues regarding artist management during a press conference. Source Music argues that these statements differ from the facts and caused damage to the company.

Separately, related criminal cases are also underway. The Seoul Yongsan Police Station referred Min Hee-jin and two then-deputy CEOs of ADOR to the Prosecution Service on the 1st of last month on charges of obstruction of business and defamation. In response, Min Hee-jin's side objected, stating that referral to the Prosecution Service does not imply indictment or guilt.

In previously conducted related trials, different judgments were rendered depending on the case. In the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the validity of NewJeans' exclusive contract, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that ILLIT replicated NewJeans' concept. On the other hand, in the lawsuit for payment of stock purchase price filed by Min Hee-jin, the court ruled that statements regarding plagiarism similarity constitute mere opinions and value judgments within the scope of business discretion.

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

*This content was translated by AI.View Original