Belift Lab asserted that former CEO Min employed “the most feared tactic in the entertainment industry—damaging an artist’s reputation” when she accused HYBE’s youngest label group, ILLIT, of plagiarizing ADOR’s NewJeans. According to Belift Lab, ILLIT became a scapegoat in Min’s strategy.
They argued that Min had orchestrated a public opinion campaign aimed at “maximizing her own financial gain,” stating, “The greatest victims of this process were the plaintiff and the rookie girl group ILLIT, which the plaintiff planned. Because the group had just debuted and lacked a fandom capable of defending them, they were likely viewed as an easy target.”
Belift Lab claimed that as early as March 2, 2024—when ILLIT’s concept film was released—Min was already calculating the penalty for terminating NewJeans’ exclusive contract. On March 18, when ILLIT’s debut teaser was published, Min allegedly received a report from Deputy CEO Lee stating that an analyst had been shown defamatory videos about ILLIT and instructed to prepare a “sell report.”
Belift Lab presented a detailed timeline of statements attributed to Min, which they argue reveal premeditation. These included remarks such as:
• “We’ll have to use the media after all.” (Feb 4, 2024)
• “Publishing an article criticizing HYBE would be good.” (Mar 19, 2024)
• “We should prepare the article next week.” (Mar 28, 2024)
• “Then we prepare for our public opinion campaign at that time.” (Mar 29, 2024)
• “I wonder if there’s a journalist who would actually write this.” (Mar 31, 2024)
The materials also included claims that Min instructed staff on March 28, 2024, to “tie two leading 4th-generation boy groups with ILLIT and say they are copying NewJeans.” On the next day, March 29, Min allegedly reviewed how to leak wording that included terms such as “NewJeans copycat” to the press.
Belift Lab further stated that by April 3, 2024—before HYBE’s audit had commenced—Min altered her plan, deciding to send a first complaint email earlier than expected. At this time, she allegedly instructed her deputies, “Do not mention the media in this. Prepare for our public opinion campaign.” Belift Lab argued, “The defendant’s allegations were the execution of a public-opinion strategy that had been planned even before the audit.”
As part of this accelerated plan, Min allegedly arranged for NewJeans to appear on a popular YouTube channel with director Shin Woo-seok, instructing them to subtly suggest that other idols were NewJeans “copycats.” Min reportedly stated, “Director Shin will lead it the way I want,” and directed them to mention not only HYBE artists but artists from other companies as well.
Belift Lab also alleged that on March 31, 2024, Min instructed Deputy CEO Lee to meet a reporter and leak an “ILLIT copied us” story while cautioning, “Do not use the term public opinion campaign.” Min also allegedly ordered that the sender of a complaint email to ADOR be changed from a lawyer to “on behalf of the parents,” and that two separate emails be sent as part of the strategy. Belift Lab claimed that inflammatory terms such as “discrimination” and “unfairness” were intentionally used to divide the public, with facts being fabricated or embellished to provoke outrage.
They emphasized that Min, a veteran with more than 25 years of experience in the entertainment industry, “knew better than anyone the ripple effects that plagiarism allegations would create,” and deliberately targeted ILLIT, the “most vulnerable and newly debuted group without any protective fandom.”
They argued that Min had orchestrated a public opinion campaign aimed at “maximizing her own financial gain,” stating, “The greatest victims of this process were the plaintiff and the rookie girl group ILLIT, which the plaintiff planned. Because the group had just debuted and lacked a fandom capable of defending them, they were likely viewed as an easy target.”
Belift Lab claimed that as early as March 2, 2024—when ILLIT’s concept film was released—Min was already calculating the penalty for terminating NewJeans’ exclusive contract. On March 18, when ILLIT’s debut teaser was published, Min allegedly received a report from Deputy CEO Lee stating that an analyst had been shown defamatory videos about ILLIT and instructed to prepare a “sell report.”
Belift Lab presented a detailed timeline of statements attributed to Min, which they argue reveal premeditation. These included remarks such as:
• “We’ll have to use the media after all.” (Feb 4, 2024)
• “Publishing an article criticizing HYBE would be good.” (Mar 19, 2024)
• “We should prepare the article next week.” (Mar 28, 2024)
• “Then we prepare for our public opinion campaign at that time.” (Mar 29, 2024)
• “I wonder if there’s a journalist who would actually write this.” (Mar 31, 2024)
The materials also included claims that Min instructed staff on March 28, 2024, to “tie two leading 4th-generation boy groups with ILLIT and say they are copying NewJeans.” On the next day, March 29, Min allegedly reviewed how to leak wording that included terms such as “NewJeans copycat” to the press.
Belift Lab further stated that by April 3, 2024—before HYBE’s audit had commenced—Min altered her plan, deciding to send a first complaint email earlier than expected. At this time, she allegedly instructed her deputies, “Do not mention the media in this. Prepare for our public opinion campaign.” Belift Lab argued, “The defendant’s allegations were the execution of a public-opinion strategy that had been planned even before the audit.”
As part of this accelerated plan, Min allegedly arranged for NewJeans to appear on a popular YouTube channel with director Shin Woo-seok, instructing them to subtly suggest that other idols were NewJeans “copycats.” Min reportedly stated, “Director Shin will lead it the way I want,” and directed them to mention not only HYBE artists but artists from other companies as well.
Belift Lab also alleged that on March 31, 2024, Min instructed Deputy CEO Lee to meet a reporter and leak an “ILLIT copied us” story while cautioning, “Do not use the term public opinion campaign.” Min also allegedly ordered that the sender of a complaint email to ADOR be changed from a lawyer to “on behalf of the parents,” and that two separate emails be sent as part of the strategy. Belift Lab claimed that inflammatory terms such as “discrimination” and “unfairness” were intentionally used to divide the public, with facts being fabricated or embellished to provoke outrage.
They emphasized that Min, a veteran with more than 25 years of experience in the entertainment industry, “knew better than anyone the ripple effects that plagiarism allegations would create,” and deliberately targeted ILLIT, the “most vulnerable and newly debuted group without any protective fandom.”
Belift Lab said Min relied on a public-opinion campaign because she had already received personal legal advice from a HYBE legal team employee who told her, “It is not legally viable; only a public-opinion campaign is possible.” Close associates also reportedly warned her that baseless plagiarism claims were unlikely to be legally upheld and could lead to defamation issues. Despite this, Min allegedly continued her strategy “to intimidate HYBE and push for revisions to the shareholder agreement in order to secure her exit.”
Belift Lab stated that Min ignored repeated legal reviews from Law Firm Sejong, all of which confirmed that “raising plagiarism allegations is not legally feasible.” They concluded, “Choosing to weaponize plagiarism claims for a public-opinion campaign and using others as a means to revise the shareholder agreement for her exit has nothing to do with the public interest the defendant claims to represent. Instead, she deliberately targeted the most vulnerable group, ILLIT, fully aware they were unable to defend themselves.”
v.daum.net/v/202511141933…
Belift Lab stated that Min ignored repeated legal reviews from Law Firm Sejong, all of which confirmed that “raising plagiarism allegations is not legally feasible.” They concluded, “Choosing to weaponize plagiarism claims for a public-opinion campaign and using others as a means to revise the shareholder agreement for her exit has nothing to do with the public interest the defendant claims to represent. Instead, she deliberately targeted the most vulnerable group, ILLIT, fully aware they were unable to defend themselves.”
v.daum.net/v/202511141933…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
