A, who left the agency just three weeks after debuting, filed for a provisional injunction at the court requesting the suspension of the exclusive contract.
However, according to a report by MyDaily on September 14th, the 50th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court dismissed A’s application for a provisional injunction to suspend the exclusive contract filed against the agency on the 4th. A was also ordered to bear all litigation costs.
A debuted with an album in February but refused to continue activities in March, about 20 days later, and reportedly left the agency without permission. In April, A notified contract termination citing the agency’s breach of settlement obligations, failure to protect the artist, and infringement of privacy and personality rights, and filed for a provisional injunction at the court in May.
However, the court found it difficult to acknowledge the contract violations and breakdown of trust claimed by A. In particular, some conversation materials submitted by A’s side were found to be selectively excerpted from the entire conversation or edited from past conversations unrelated to the issue at hand.
Claims that the debut was delayed due to the agency’s circumstances were also rejected. The court noted that A underwent several plastic surgeries and recovery periods over about a year, and messages showed that A and their family consented to this process.
The agency continued preparations for debut after recovery, including recording and profile shoots, making it difficult to hold the company responsible for debut delays.
Claims by A of not receiving settlement statements and falsification of some costs were also rejected. The court judged that the agency shared settlement details generated before debut and provided monthly settlement statements with detailed usage even after debut. The costs included in the statements were confirmed to be actual expenditures under the exclusive contract.
As a result, A’s plans to halt activities immediately after debut and pursue transfer to another company were effectively halted. The court judged that there was no serious fault on the agency’s part warranting suspension of the exclusive contract, thus maintaining the validity of the existing contract.
Meanwhile, the identities of A and the agency remain undisclosed.