"Min Hee-jin's plagiarism remarks not unlawful"… Belift Lab and Source Music lose first-instance 2.5 billion won damages suit [Star Scene] [Comprehensive]

*This content was translated by AI.View Original

Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin won a total of 2.5 billion won in damages claims filed by HYBE-affiliated labels Belift Lab and Source Music. The court determined that the majority of Min's remarks at her press conference constituted expressions of opinion rather than statements of false facts.

On the 13th, the 12th Civil Division of the Seoul Western District Court delivered a ruling on the 2 billion won damages claim filed by Belift Lab against Min Hee-jin. Min's side had also filed a counterclaim for 5 billion won, alleging that ILLIT suffered damages by imitating NewJeans' concept. On the same day, a 500 million won damages suit filed by Source Music against Min was also heard concurrently.

Regarding the Belift Lab lawsuit, the court ruled, "Both the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim are dismissed." Consequently, the 5 billion won counterclaim filed by Min's side, alleging that ILLIT imitated NewJeans' concept and caused damages, was also not accepted. Belift Lab will bear the litigation costs for the main suit, while Min Hee-jin will bear the costs for the counterclaim.

In the ruling on Source Music's 500 million won damages claim, which was heard concurrently that day, the court stated, "The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs."

Regarding Belift Lab, the court did not view Min Hee-jin's allegations of plagiarism against ILLIT as defamation based on false facts. The court explained, "Popular culture and art are by nature evaluated subjectively rather than objectively, and freedom of expression should be broadly protected unless it is malicious or significantly lacks proportionality," adding that "the remark that ILLIT resembles NewJeans does not specify concrete facts but corresponds to the defendant's subjective expression of opinion."

The court further added, "Holding legal responsibility in a situation of similarity controversy would hinder criticism of creative works and the healthy development of popular art," and noted, "Even if viewed as specifying facts, there is no unlawfulness when considered against the evidence and circumstances."

Min Hee-jin's 5 billion won counterclaim against Belift Lab was also dismissed. The court stated, "Considering all circumstances regarding the overall activities of NewJeans members, the fame, credit, and achievements generated by NewJeans are results achieved jointly by corporations such as ADOR and Source Music, not by the defendant individually," and did not recognize individual infringement interests.

Additionally, the court determined that Belift Lab's planning and production of ILLIT constituted legitimate performance of duties, and that Min Hee-jin's rebuttals via SNS and other channels were close to expressions of opinion, thus not constituting defamation or obstruction of business.

In the lawsuit with Source Music as well, the court found no unlawfulness in Min Hee-jin's remarks. Source Music filed the suit claiming that expressions used by former CEO Min at a press conference in April 2024—regarding the entity responsible for casting NewJeans members, restrictions on contacting trainees, changes to debut order, treatment issues, and terms such as "scoundrel"—were false facts.

Regarding these remarks, the court conveyed that it is difficult to say they are false facts in the sense that the defendant specified the fact of discovering members without the plaintiff's help, rather than indicating that the defendant's fame 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 is confirmed that the plaintiff planned to debut NewJeans members first but debuted LE SSERAFIM instead, after which the defendant strongly protested, making it difficult to definitively determine this as a false fact."

Remarks regarding trainee treatment were also found not unlawful. Regarding expressions to the effect of "scoundrel" or "sold the members for 2 billion won," the court determined that while they are vulgar terms looking down on the other party, they appear to be metaphorical and evaluative expressions directed at HYBE or the debut order, making it 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. On the other hand, Min Hee-jin's side has rebutted that it was a legitimate issue raised to protect NewJeans' interests and creative ethics.

The lawsuit with Source Music stemmed from former CEO Min mentioning issues such as the entity responsible for casting NewJeans members and artist management at a press conference. Source Music claims that these remarks differ from the facts and caused damage to the company.

Separately, related criminal cases are also in progress. On the 1st of last month, the Seoul Yongsan Police Station referred Min Hee-jin and two then-vice presidents of ADOR to the Prosecution Service 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.

Previous related trials yielded different judgments depending on the case. In the lawsuit for confirmation of the validity of NewJeans' exclusive contract, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to view ILLIT as having replicated NewJeans' concept. On the other hand, in the lawsuit for claim of stock purchase price filed by Min Hee-jin, a judgment was received to the effect that remarks regarding plagiarism similarity corresponded to simple 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