Kpop Agency Tries To Impose A 200 Million Won Fine Against Idol Who Had A One Night Stand, The Court Rules Against This Practice
An idol singer who was sued by their agency due to a private life issue has won a legal battle. This ruling is expected to be recorded as a case that sounded the alarm on the deep-rooted “slave contract” practices in the entertainment industry.
Member A of a four-member male group, who dreamt of debuting had his dreams crushed when his agency found out about something related to his private life. At the late age of 28, he was making another attempt to become an idol but his dreams were squashed.
On January 8, 2023, A spent the night with a woman he met while drinking with hometown friends. A week later, on January 15, the agency B handed A a sheet of paper. Its content was shocking:
“A (the person himself) admits to all facts about the scandal and agrees to compensate for all financial damages arising from it.”
The scope of compensation was practically unlimited. It included:
- Full cost of producing and promoting the group’s first album
- Penalty fees under the exclusive contract
- Any additional penalty fees
There was even a clause stating that if A could not pay with his own assets, he agreed the agency could demand compensation from his parents or relatives.
Out of desperation to continue group activities, A signed. However, just two days later, on January 17, the agency officially announced his withdrawal from the group and contract termination. Later, the agency used the document he had signed to file a lawsuit demanding 200 million won [$143,841] in damages.
However, the Court ruled, “Private life issue is not a contract violation, the document is invalid.” The agency claimed that A’s sexual relations were a clear breach of the “duty to maintain dignity” as an idol. But Judge Kim Noa of the Seoul Central District Court rejected all of the agency’s claims.
The court first examined whether A’s actions violated the “duty to maintain dignity” in the contract. According to the ruling, for a breach to occur, the act must “damage dignity to the extent that it interferes with the performance of cultural and artistic services.”
The court stated: “The defendant’s sexual act with a woman did not constitute a criminal case, nor was it mentioned in the media,” adding that this alone was insufficient to see it as a violation of Article 6, Clause 3 of the contract. In other words, since it was not a crime and not publicly known, it could not be considered a breach simply because it was a private relationship.
The court then judged the validity of the document and ruled it was “invalid from the outset” as an “unfair legal act” under Article 104 of the Civil Code.
The court considered A’s situation—being 28 years old, older than typical idol group members, and having previously debuted in another group without success. The agency exploited this desperate mindset to impose billions of won in compensation obligations without any legal basis.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the agency’s entire claim for 200 million won in damages and ordered the agency to bear all legal costs.
What do you think of the ruling?
Source: (A)
