On February 27, 2025, court records were made public in accordance with South Korea’s disclosure procedures. The documents include testimonies and recorded phone conversations that were presented during the case.
According to the filings, a former employee identified as “BF,” who worked on the defendant’s storytelling team, testified that they had provided a project proposal for “G” at the request of Creative Director “BH.” In the documents, “G” refers to a project proposal connected to NewJeans, while “BH” is identified as a staff member at BELIFT LAB, the label responsible for ILLIT.
In a recorded phone call dated June 20, 2024, BF explained how they ended up sharing planning materials related to NewJeans with BELIFT LAB. According to the transcript, BF stated that BH had approached them shortly after forming a new group and expressed uncertainty about the direction of the project. BF said they offered their own well-organized conceptual materials, believing they could provide inspiration.
BF further commented during the call that when observing later uploads and promotional content, it appeared that the shared materials had been referenced. The transcript includes remarks suggesting frustration over what BF perceived as denials of those references.
Another section of the court documents reportedly states that “R” (interpreted as ILLIT) used the same production formula as “G” (NewJeans). The filing claims that the issue began when a group under the same parent company allegedly adopted similar production strategies, design elements, concepts, and promotional approaches as NewJeans’ debut blueprint. The matter was subsequently raised to the CEO level.
Phrases such as “same production formula,” “copied design logo,” and “imitated concept” have drawn significant public attention, especially among fans who have previously pointed out perceived similarities between ILLIT’s rollout and NewJeans’ early branding and debut strategy.
The newly surfaced documents are being interpreted by some as validating Min Hee Jin’s earlier claims that elements of NewJeans’ branding and production identity were replicated internally. In a prior ruling related to the broader dispute, the court determined that HYBE would bear legal costs and recognized the legitimacy of Min Hee Jin’s exercise of her put option, ordering HYBE to pay ₩25.5 billion KRW (approximately $17.6 million USD).
As discussions intensify online, the controversy continues to fuel debate over creative ownership, internal label competition, and corporate governance within HYBE’s multi-label structure. Further developments are expected as the industry closely monitors the ongoing legal and public fallout.
Sources: theqoo