FIFTY FIFTY lawsuit starts today (July 5th), first trial for injunction to suspend exclusive contract validity
A legal battle surrounding girl group FIFTY FIFTY will begin.
On July 5th, the 50th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court will hold an interrogation date for the injunction to suspend the validity of the exclusive contract filed against Attrakt by 4 members of FIFTY FIFTY.
Earlier on June 28th, Barun Law Firm, which served as FIFTY FIFTY’s legal representative, announced through an official position, “The four members filed an application for the suspension of the exclusive contract with the Seoul Central District Court on June 19th through their legal representative, and the trial is currently underway.”
The internal conflict surrounding FIFTY FIFTY first became known to the outside world on June 23rd. The agency Attrakt revealed one member’s surgical treatment due to deterioration of health and heralded her suspension of activities. At the same time, they caused a stir by claiming, “We have identified external forces that are approaching our artists and enticing them to violate their exclusive contracts with us.”
Attrakt also said “External forces attempted to poach the members” and announced that they sent a proof of content to Warner Music Korea on June 26th. Attrakt pointed out 3 people, including The Givers’ CEO Ahn Sung Il, who produced the hit song “Cupid”, and filed a complaint against them with the Seoul Gangnam Police Station on charges of breach of trust and obstruction of business. Attrakt claimed, “During the process of purchasing the song ‘Cupid’ from a foreign composer, The Givers did not provide any information to Attrakt regarding the purchase of copyrights. The CEO and the company secretly did it by themselves.”
However, Barun Law Firm refuted, “This injunction is a measure taken in response to Attrakt’s breach of contract and the resulting destruction of trust. The legal representative pointed out various problems and sent a letter asking for the mistakes to be corrected, but Attrakt revealed their position through continuous articles without trying to explain the requirements.” In particular, they emphasized, “The four members have tried to think and act independently despite their young age. After fully consulting with their parents, they came to raise the issue with the legal representative’s help. Nevertheless, Attrakt has not been listening to the members’ opinions, instead saying how ‘external forces are attempting to poach the members’.“
Afterwards, Attrakt disclosed to the media the recording file of the phone call between CEO Jeon Hong Joon and Warner Music Korea’s executive director Yoon, saying, “CEO Ahn Sung Il was arbitrarily proceeding with FIFTY FIFTY’s buyout without the approval of Attrakt’s CEO Jeon Hong Joon. Besides, additional criminal facts of The Givers’ CEO Ahn Sung Il are being confirmed.” According to the recording file, executive director Yoon said, “We offered CEO Ahn Sung Il 20 billion won for a buyout before.” When CEO Jeon Hong Joon asked “What is buyout?“, executive director Yoon replied, “In plain language, we proposed to take over all the members.”
Shortly after, The Givers refuted, “Attrakt is distorting it as if our CEO Ahn Sung Il had arbitrarily discussed FIFTY FIFTY members’ future with Warner Music Korea, but this is not true. Warner Music Korea proposed the structure of ‘label deal’ and Warner Music hoped to discuss it with Attrakt’s CEO Jeon Hong Joon, so the two companies were connected.”
In particular, The Givers added, “We are not a decision maker and have not played any unnecessary role in this. Attrakt is claiming that it is a conspiracy plotted behind the scenes by our company, which is dissatisfied with them not accepting Warner Music Korea’s label deal, but this is not true at all. The reason why we did not express any position is that all the attention and damage caused by false frames that deviated from the essence of the issue will eventually go to FIFTY FIFTY members. Attrakt is tarnishing their reputation. Please stop further speculative false frames and acts that damage our company’s reputation.”
Attention is focused on which side the court will take through this lawsuit.
Source: Daum
