FIFTY FIFTY submitted a request to resume questioning to the court through their legal representative law firm today (Aug 28.)
This is FIFTY FIFTY’s second request for resuming questioning since the one on August 17th.
On August 28th, FIFTY FIFTY’s legal representative stated, “Through recent media articles, multiple entertainment industry insiders explained that the money the members of FIFTY FIFTY have to repay directly amounts to 3 billion KRW, and if the earnings during the exclusive contract period do not reach this amount (prepayment), the debt would be absorbed by the agency (ATTRAKT). In other words, since the prepayment is a liability the agency (ATTRAKT) has to repay, it is interpreted that the members of FIFTY FIFTY are not involved.”
They continued, “However, in this case, the agency (ATTRAKT) is not a party to the prepayment contract and has never borne the prepayment obligation from the beginning. The entity responsible for bearing the prepayment obligation of up to 9 billion KRW is not ATTRAKT, but a third party, Star Crew Entertainment. Nonetheless, ATTRAKT was repaying Star Crew Entertainment’s prepayment obligation by supplying FIFTY FIFTY’s music and albums to them. Furthermore, thanks to the supply of FIFTY FIFTY’s music and albums, Star Crew Entertainment was able to receive an additional prepayment of 2 billion KRW.”
They further explained, “FIFTY FIFTY is not raising the issue of the agency’s (ATTRAKT’s) prepayment obligation but is rather questioning the agency’s (ATTRAKT’s) act of repaying a third party’s (Star Crew Entertainment’s) prepayment obligation. Moreover, Star Crew Entertainment is a company where CEO Jeon Hong Joon personally exercises control and management rights. Repaying Star Crew Entertainment’s prepayment obligation through the supply of FIFTY FIFTY’s music and albums constitutes unfair support for CEO Jeon Hong Joon’s personal company. This could potentially constitute embezzlement and breach of duty, thus qualifying as a significant reason that damages the essential trust required in the context of this exclusive contract relationship. Ultimately, this aspect is one of the core points of contention raised by the members of FIFTY FIFTY in the case of the application for suspension of the effect of the exclusive contract.”
Lastly, they stated, “FIFTY FIFTY members have submitted statements and supporting materials multiple times regarding the illegal acts committed within ATTRAKT, with the hope that these will be faithfully reflected in the trial and proceedings. Therefore, despite being somewhat unusual, they have submitted requests for resuming questioning twice. They also earnestly hope for sufficient opportunity to present their case on this core point of contention even after the resumption of questioning.”
While FIFTY FIFTY gained attention for their global success, such as entering the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 with ‘Cupid’, they revealed earlier on June 28th that they had filed for a suspension of the effect of their exclusive contract against ATTRAKT. Subsequently, they have been engaged in a dispute with ATTRAKT over the exclusive contract.
Source: daum
