ILLIT Plagiarism, NewJeans Copying: 3 Key Differences in Conclusions [Yoon Sang-geun’s Context]

Was it the judge’s discretion, or simply a difference in legal interpretation? Subtle differences have emerged in rulings on the same issues.

On June 12th, the 31st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Nam In-soo, hereinafter Civil Division 31) held the sentencing date for the lawsuit filed by HYBE against former CEO Min Hee Jin, seeking confirmation of the termination of the shareholder agreement, and the lawsuit filed by former CEO Min Hee Jin against HYBE, claiming payment for stock trading related to the exercise of put options. “HYBE’s claim is dismissed, and HYBE bears the litigation costs. Furthermore, Min Hee Jin’s exercise of the put option is valid, and HYBE shall pay approximately ₩25.5 billion KRW,” they stated. (Currency conversion may vary.)

Prior to this, the 41st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jung Hoi-il, hereinafter Civil Division 41) held the sentencing date for the lawsuit filed by ADOR against the five NewJeans members on October 30, 2025, seeking confirmation of the validity of their exclusive contracts, ruling in favor of ADOR. “The exclusive contracts are confirmed to be valid. The defendant bears the litigation costs,” they announced.

While the two lawsuits involve disputes between former CEO Min Hee Jin and HYBE, and NewJeans and ADOR respectively, and the legal issues differ – confirmation of exclusive contracts versus termination of shareholder agreement – they both garnered significant attention due to the series of events and issues stemming from HYBE’s audit rights activation in April 2024, including the emergency press conference held by former CEO Min Hee Jin and NewJeans, former CEO Min Hee Jin’s resignation from her position as ADOR CEO, the plagiarism controversy surrounding ILLIT, and the NewJeans poaching allegations. The lengthy pronouncements of the verdicts revealed subtle differences in judgment on the same issues, drawing further scrutiny.

◆ ILLIT Plagiarism? “No Evidence” vs. “Right to Raise Concerns”

First, Civil Division 41 stated regarding the ILLIT plagiarism claims that while there were some similarities, it was difficult to consider it plagiarism. “It is difficult to say that ILLIT copied NewJeans’ concept, and there is no evidence to admit this.” They added, “The concept of a female idol group is difficult to view as publicity rights or intellectual property rights, and it is also difficult to see that ADOR seriously violated the contract simply because it did not take any particular action.”

In contrast, Civil Division 31 stated, “According to one report, one member withdrew before ILLIT’s debut, resulting in a five-member group, and forms such as not highlighting the main vocal and blurring the boundaries of positions are similar to NewJeans.” They continued, “NewJeans’ parents raised the issue of copying in a petition, and even if Min Hee Jin persuaded NewJeans’ parents to submit the petition, the petition itself was written by the parents, so their claim can be recognized as an opinion on similarity, not a factual error.” Furthermore, “It is presumed that the CEO of Belift Lab was aware of the similarity issue to some extent when ILLIT’s debut teaser was released, but there does not appear to be any material showing that Belift Lab or HYBE consulted with ADOR in advance about this issue or obtained their understanding. It seems that they raised the copying allegations with the intent of not agreeing to ILLIT being introduced as NewJeans’ younger sister group. Belift Lab did not present more evidence to refute the ‘not similar’ rebuttal, and it is difficult to say that this controversy has completely subsided. Even if the fixity of this concept is not legally protected, the copying controversy raised by Min Hee Jin appears to be an issue that needs to be resolved through social discourse.”

Looking closely, there is a subtle difference between the ruling that “there is no evidence of replication” and the ruling that “they failed to present evidence to refute the ‘not similar’ rebuttal.”

◆ NewJeans Poaching? “Sufficient Cause for Audit” vs. “No Action Taken by Park Ji-won”

Civil Division 41 explicitly stated regarding ‘the legitimacy of Min Hee Jin’s dismissal process,’ one of the key issues in the ruling, that “it is difficult to see that the matter is a result of unfair auditing,” directly citing the KakaoTalk conversations between Min Hee Jin and former ADOR Vice President Lee Sang-woo as evidence.

Based on the comments “Making them (HYBE) struggle and us gaining freedom” and “Changing the plan, pulling forward the timing. We don’t talk about the media here. We will conduct a public opinion war lawsuit. We will detonate after seeing the response,” the court pointed out that “Min Hee Jin had the intention of separating ADOR, including NewJeans, from HYBE and prepared public opinion campaigns and lawsuits in advance.”

Furthermore, “There were also acts of contacting investors and forming public opinion using the members’ parents. This is sufficient cause for ADOR’s audit initiation. There are circumstances that can be seen as Min Hee Jin having the intention of becoming independent with NewJeans, and ADOR’s audit initiation was a response to this plan.” They added that Min Hee Jin’s attempt to ‘poach NewJeans’ was not to protect NewJeans from ADOR’s breach of exclusive contract obligations.

Civil Division 31 also stated, “It is recognized that Min Hee Jin sought ways to independently control ADOR. It seems that she anticipated the breakdown of negotiations for the shareholder agreement and planned to leave ADOR with consent.” However, they saw that this fact alone could not be considered a serious violation of the shareholder agreement. “Min Hee Jin’s departure is a serious reason, but it is difficult to judge whether it will become an empty shell or not based on the submitted content alone. Assuming that it becomes an empty shell, she said that if she is not properly compensated, she will exercise the put option and leave to create a male NewJeans. It seems that she was trying to buy ADOR shares at a low price, saying that if negotiations break down, she will exercise the put option and leave, and it will become an empty shell. Furthermore, all of these plans are based on HYBE’s consent, so if HYBE does not agree, these plans cannot take effect,” they ruled.

In particular, “Even though Park Ji-won, the then-CEO of HYBE, heard that Min Hee Jin was meeting with outside investors, he did not take any particular action until he received protest emails from NewJeans’ parents afterward. If the method of seeking to attempt a listing by mobilizing external private equity funds was seen as a serious violation of the shareholder agreement, it seems that there would have been action taken on this, but it seems that there may have been room to judge that it was not a serious breach of duty,” they stated.

When looking at the issue of ‘Min Hee Jin’s NewJeans poaching,’ the ruling that “there were preparations for a public opinion war and lawsuits (for poaching)” and the ruling that “it is difficult to conclude that she tried to poach based only on the ’empty shell’ remark” are also contradictory.

◆ Who Started the Public Opinion War? “HYBE’s Plan to Create Unfair Public Opinion” vs. “Conflict Expressed Through Audit Rights Activation”

In the same context as the ‘NewJeans poaching’ issue, Civil Division 41 recognized the legitimacy of Min Hee Jin’s dismissal process and judged that “Min Hee Jin had the intention of separating ADOR, including NewJeans, from HYBE and prepared public opinion campaigns and lawsuits in advance, and there were also acts of contacting investors and forming public opinion using the members’ parents.”

On the other hand, Civil Division 31 stated, “Min Hee Jin’s press conference and the subsequent announcement of official positions are all judged to be in accordance with both parties’ rights to rebuttal.” They added, “The allegations of copying and pushing out seem legitimate, and considering the possible conflicts of interest between shareholders, the conflict was expressed through the activation of audit rights after raising the issue through internal emails.”

In other words, the ruling that “Min Hee Jin planned a public opinion war and lawsuits” and the ruling that “the conflict surfaced through the activation of audit rights after raising the issue through internal emails” are contradictory.