Artist A, who filed for an injunction to suspend the validity of her exclusive contract just three weeks after debut in an apparent attempt to transfer to another agency, has had her lawsuit dismissed by the court.
The 50th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Lee Sang-hoon, rejected A’s application for an injunction to suspend the validity of her exclusive contract against her agency on Sep 4th and ordered A to bear all litigation costs.
The court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support A’s claims of contractual violations and a breakdown in the relationship of trust, or that some of her claims were inconsistent with the facts. The evidence submitted by A was found to have been distorted by selectively extracting portions of conversations with the agency, while unrelated past conversations had allegedly been maliciously edited and pieced together before being submitted to the court.
According to the court, A released her debut album in February but refused to participate in activities and left without authorization in March, just over 20 days later. In April, she sent a certified letter claiming that the agency had breached its settlement obligations and its duty to protect the artist, as well as violated her privacy and personal rights, and subsequently asserted that the contract should be terminated. She then filed for an injunction in May.
However, according to the court’s detailed findings regarding the evidence presented, the majority of A’s claims were found to involve distortions of the facts. A claimed that the agency had delayed her debut, but the court determined that the agency was not at fault, noting that A had undergone several plastic surgeries over the course of approximately one year and required recovery periods, that messages showed A and her family had actively agreed to the procedures, and that the agency arranged recording sessions and profile photography immediately after her recovery.
The court also rejected A’s claims that the agency had failed to provide settlement statements and had fabricated them. The court confirmed that the agency had shared settlement details accumulated up to that point shortly before her debut and had provided monthly settlement statements and detailed breakdowns after her debut. It also determined that the expenses listed in the settlement statements were legitimate entries corresponding to actual contract-related expenditures.
When contacted by phone on the morning of Sep 14th regarding the matter, A gave a brief response, saying, “I don’t really know,” and “I’ll speak with my lawyer,” before declining to comment further.
Sources: mydaily