Court Says 'ILLIT = NewJeans Copy' Is an Expression of Opinion; Rejects Belift Lab's 2 Billion Won Damages Claim

[Financial News] Belift Lab's 2 billion won damages claim against former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin over her allegation that ILLIT copied NewJeans was dismissed. Meanwhile, Min's 5 billion won counterclaim against Belift Lab was also rejected.
On the 13th, the 12th Civil Division of the Seoul Western District Court, presided over by Judge Kim Jin-young, dismissed both Belift Lab's damages claim against Min and the counterclaim she had filed.
The court found that Min's description of ILLIT as a 'copy of NewJeans' at a 2024 press conference and in a statement expressed an opinion or assessment of their similarity, rather than asserting specific facts.
The court said, "The claim that ILLIT copied NewJeans in various areas, including hair, makeup and choreography, is merely the defendant's assessment and cannot be considered the presentation of specific facts," adding, "The public can also hear both sides' arguments and make up their own minds."
The court went on to explain that freedom of expression should be broadly protected, saying, "In popular culture and the arts, whether a work is an imitation is difficult to assess according to fixed standards and should be tested in the public sphere." It found that even if some remarks were treated as statements of fact, they were difficult to deem false or could not be considered unlawful.
However, Min's 5 billion won counterclaim was also not granted. The court found that NewJeans' reputation, credibility and ability to attract customers were achievements belonging to corporations such as ADOR, not to Min personally. The court's reasoning was also that Belift Lab's rebuttal was difficult to view as having damaged Min's personal reputation.
The same day, the court also dismissed all of Source Music's claims in a damages suit the company had filed against Min.
Source Music claimed that Min had spread false information and insulted the company at a press conference while discussing the discovery of NewJeans' members and the group's debut process. The court, however, concluded that it was difficult to determine that Min's remarks about trainee selection and the order of the group's debut were false, and that some of her statements were expressions of opinion.
The court also found that, in the context of Min's remarks as a whole, terms such as 'thugs' that she used about Source Music were difficult to view as insulting personal attacks.
[email protected] Choi Seung-han Reporter