Rookie Idol Loses Court Bid To Leave Agency Weeks After Debut

An idol referred to as “A,” who filed for an injunction to suspend their exclusive contract just weeks after debut with the intention of moving to another agency, has had the request dismissed by the court.

The Seoul Central District Court’s 50th Civil Division (Chief Judge Lee Sang Hoon) dismissed A’s injunction request to suspend the effect of their exclusive contract against their agency on the 4th, ruling that A must bear the full cost of the lawsuit.

The court determined that A’s claims of contract violations and a breakdown of trust were either unsupported by evidence or did not match the facts. It was confirmed that the evidence A submitted consisted of selectively excerpted portions of conversations with the agency, distorted and maliciously edited together with unrelated past conversations.

According to the court, A went silent and left without authorization in March, refusing to continue activities just about 20 days after releasing their debut album in February. In April, A sent a certified notice claiming contract violations, citing failure to fulfill settlement obligations, failure to fulfill the duty to protect the artist, and violations of privacy and personal rights, before filing the injunction lawsuit in May.

However, based on the court’s detailed review of the claims, most of A’s assertions turned out to be distortions of fact. A claimed the agency had delayed their debut, but the court found no fault on the agency’s part, citing the fact that A had undergone multiple plastic surgeries over about a year requiring recovery time, message records showing A and their family had actively consented to the procedures, and the fact that the agency proceeded with recording and profile shoots immediately after recovery.

The claims regarding non-disclosure and falsification of settlement statements were also rejected. The court confirmed that the agency had shared settlement details prior to debut, provided monthly settlement statements and detailed breakdowns after debut, and that the cost items listed in the settlement statements were legitimately recorded in accordance with the contract’s terms.

Regarding this, A was reached by phone on the morning of the 14th, but kept their comments brief, saying only, “I’m not sure,” and “I’ll have to talk to my lawyer.”

Source: (A)