[talk] Chu, Final Victory in Lawsuit Against Former Agency to Invalidate Exclusive Contract

Congratulations on your final victory ㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠ

| Filed a lawsuit in court amid dispute with former agency

| Chu “Excessive liability for damages”… Claiming invalidity of contract

| 'Highest Profit' 2019 Activity Settlement Not Received

| Blockberry refused to accept the verdict, but the Supreme Court confirmed the loss

[Seoul = Newsis] Chuu (25, real name Kim Ji-woo), formerly of the group LOONA, has won the lawsuit for the nullification of her exclusive contract against her former agency, with which she had been in dispute over profit settlement, etc. The photo is of singer Chuu. (Photo = provided by ATRP) 2024.06.25. photo@newsis.com *Resale and DB prohibited

[Seoul = Newsis] Reporter Park Hyeon-jun = Chuu (25, real name Kim Ji-woo), formerly of the group LOONA, has won the lawsuit for the invalidation of her exclusive contract against her former agency, with which she had been in dispute over profit settlement, etc.

On the 27th, the 3rd Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Noh Jeong-hee) confirmed the original verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial of the lawsuit filed by Chuga against Blockberry Creative, requesting "confirmation of the invalidity of the exclusive contract," with a dismissal without further examination.

Dismissal without trial is a system in which, except for criminal cases, the appeal is not accepted and the main trial is not conducted unless there is a specific reason, such as illegality, in the original judgment.

Chu, who had previously been in conflict with Blockberry over profit settlement, filed this lawsuit against Blockberry in December 2021.

Blockberry claimed that Chuu was expelled from the team in November 2022 on grounds of bullying, but Chuu refuted the claims, saying that there was no bullying and that the profit-sharing ratio in her exclusive contract was unfair.

In the first trial, Chuu's side argued, "The exclusive contract with Blockberry stipulates a penalty of three times the amount paid by the agency in the event of termination of the contract, and stipulates payment of 15% of the expected sales from entertainment activities as compensation, imposing excessive liability for damages."

On the other hand, Blockberry argued, "Chuu signed a different contract in April 2022 and was active independently under another agency prior to that contract, so the exclusive contract is already invalid."

The trial court ruled in favor of Chu.

The court rejected Blockberry's argument, saying, "Since Chuu's exclusive contract had a fixed period of time, it does not naturally lose its validity just because her agency changed."

It continued, "The original author (Chu) generated a net profit of approximately 860 million won from 2016 to September 2021 through his entertainment activities, but if we follow Blockberry's profit distribution provisions, the original author will not receive any settlement money."

While saying that "due to the nature of the entertainment industry, there are many initial costs associated with discovering and nurturing new talent," he also pointed out that "Blockberry's profit-sharing clause is very unreasonable because no matter how much the plaintiff's profits from his entertainment activities increase, he will not be paid if the profits do not exceed 40% of his sales."

The court also cited 2019 as an example, the year when LOONA recorded the highest profits since their debut. At the time, LOONA recorded sales of approximately 2.88 billion won, but their profit was only 1.11 billion won, so they were not paid the settlement amount.

In addition, "Blockberry also included in the settlement the expenses incurred during the trainee period before the plaintiff debuted as a member of LOONA," and added, "It is difficult to justify the imbalance as the defendant (Blockberry) is likely to recover a significant portion of the initial costs through this."

Although Blockberry appealed the ruling, the Supreme Court, following the appeal, also ruled that the ruling was justified and upheld the original judgment.