In a Seoul court proceeding, Billy Lab’s lawsuit against Min Hee-jin, the former CEO of Adore, advanced to its fourth trial date on the afternoon of the 14th. The case centers on a claim for 2 billion won in damages, filed by Billy Lab against Min Hee-jin.

The plaintiff’s side contends that Hybe’s audit, cited as the reason for Min Hee-jin’s emergency press conference, has been shown in multiple rulings to be not illegal. They argued that Hybe announced the audit of Adore and Min Hee-jin on April 22 last year, but Min had already been planning a public opinion campaign since February to maximize her own financial gain.

Billy Lab further asserted that Min sought to corner Hybe by reducing Adore to a shell and attempting to acquire Hybe’s 80% stake in Adore at a bargain, choosing the feared tactic of “damaging an artist’s reputation” in the entertainment industry.

Regarding Min’s so-called public opinion campaign, Billy Lab presented a date-stamped table of conversations including lines like “In the end, we have to use the media” to emphasize that the campaign was premeditated.

They also claimed that under the premise that “ILLIT plagiarized NewJeans,” various operations were carried out to pursue the claim. A report cited that a senior editor at Weverse Magazine circulated an internal document titled “Weekly Music Industry Report,” which, while framed as industry analysis, contained demeaning content toward idols from other agencies; this was revealed in last year’s parliamentary audit. The document included the phrase “Throw away NewJeans and start over,” a line long used to portray NewJeans in disputes with Adore as a major breach of contract.

Min Hee-jin’s side has argued that the public allegations about ILLIT and NewJeans were made without proper evidence, claiming that the plaintiff’s arguments amount to defamation and disruption of business rather than a copyright dispute. They noted that private KakaoTalk conversations were allegedly surveilled and leaked, and that presenting such private exchanges as evidence has raised questions about propriety in court. The court had not yet disclosed the KakaoTalk conversations during this session, as a version with the conversations redacted was used in the presentation.