A rookie female singer, A, who filed a provisional injunction to suspend the validity of her exclusive contract against her agency less than a month after her debut, has shocked the public with her words and actions during the conflict with her agency.
Although A claimed unfair contract extensions, delayed debut, payment issues, verbal abuse, and coercion by the agency, the court did not recognize any of these claims.
The 50th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court dismissed A’s request for a temporary suspension of the exclusive contract on September 4th and ordered her to bear all the legal costs. Since A did not appeal, the dismissal was finalized on the 12th.
The court stated, “There is insufficient evidence or factual inaccuracy regarding A’s claims of contract breach and breakdown of trust. The evidence submitted by A selectively distorted portions of conversations with the agency and maliciously edited and pieced together irrelevant past conversations.”
Regarding A’s payment claims, the court noted, “The agency shared settlement details before the debut and provided monthly statements with itemized details after debut. The cost entries are legitimate according to contract implementation.”
According to Star News, A released her debut album in February but refused activities and disappeared without notice as early as March, less than a month after debut. She then severed contact with the agency, suddenly claimed contract termination through a legal representative in April with a certified letter, and filed for a provisional injunction in May.
With her Generation Z appeal and unique sensibilities, A released a single in February, generating expectations with prominent K-pop producers, engineers, and creative directors joining the project. Immediately after debut, she was selected as a main cover artist on Spotify and garnered attention as a next-generation R&B rookie.
However, A’s conduct against the agency was somewhat shocking for an emerging artist trying to establish her presence.
According to the dismissal ruling obtained by Star News, A claimed the agency delayed her debut, the agency CEO verbally abused her, and forced her to lose weight down to 43 kg. She also accused the agency of repeatedly preventing her from receiving psychiatric treatment without agreement.
However, A’s repeated plastic surgeries were found to have contributed to her delayed debut. The court said, “There is no basis to conclude the agency delayed the debut without reasonable cause. The delay was partly due to the agency’s judgment that A lacked the capability to perform entertainment activities.”
A cut off contact on days with scheduled official events citing the flu. When a concerned staff member visited her officetel using a password given in advance, she claimed unauthorized entry and invasion of privacy, but the court rejected this claim.
Her allegation of diet coercion causing stomach cramps was also dismissed, as the cramps occurred before the exclusive contract and the timeline was maliciously distorted. The agency reportedly recommended stopping medication she had been taking for health reasons. Furthermore, A’s claim that the agency tried to degrade her into a TikToker by encouraging TikTok live streams as part of marketing to Southeast Asian fans was also dismissed.
The claim of verbal abuse by the agency was found to stem from pointing out issues rather than actual insults or criticism.
Efforts to contact A for her position on this matter were unsuccessful. It is reported that after the dismissal decision, A has continued to cut off contact despite the agency’s rightful requests to return. The agency sought mediation from the Korea Entertainment Producers’ Association (KEPA) to resolve the issue amicably, but A ignored even KEPA’s summons, maintaining silence.
The agency has repeatedly requested amicable conflict resolution and A’s return through certified letters. While urging A’s sincere return, the agency is reportedly considering criminal complaints for fraud related to filing a lawsuit based on false and distorted evidence, as well as theft and embezzlement related to A’s unauthorized removal of valuable company property.