TVXQ’s 3 members (Kim Jaejoong-Kim Junsu-Park Yoochun) and SM Entertainment battled fiercely in court over the question of the validity of their exclusive contract.
At the hearing of Civil Case No. 48 (Chief Prosecuting Attorney Lee Lim) at the Seoul District Courts on the 16th, the first date of pleading, the representatives of SM and the trio refused to back down from their stances as they respectively stated, ‘TVXQ’s contract period of 13 years was inevitable for their entrance into foreign markets’ and, ‘The period of the contract was decided upon without the consent of the members.’
SM’s legal representative explained that, “The period of the contract was agreed upon as both sides shared mutual financial purposes and motives,” and “As TVXQ was created with the purpose of targeting foreign markets from the start, the long contract period was an established and agreed upon prerequisite for a stable entry into foreign markets.”
He emphasized that, “If there was a lack of support or an unfair income distribution during TVXQ’s activities, the exclusive contract would be a problem, however, TVXQ has always received the best treatment possible that is far superior to that of other artistes in the industry.”
Also, the representative added, “The trio did not raise a single objection regarding the content of the contract since their debut, until they decided to bring up the problems of the exclusive contract after they clashed with the agency on the issue of the cosmetic company they actively invested in during the months of 2008,” and “They have been neglecting their activities, stating the lawsuit as a reason for their neglect, and because of this, the other members and the agency have been incurring immense damages.”
Regarding this, the trio’s legal representative refuted the previous statements as he said, “The Fair Trade Commission has acknowledged seven years as the maximum length of a contract,” and “TVXQ’s contract was invalid from the start as there have always been unfair clauses within the contract including unfair income distribution, excessive compensation penalties and a contract period that is too long.”
He emphasized that, “We cannot accept SM’s stance and the agency’s claim for compensation when their entire argument is based off an invalid contract,” and “Before we pick at anything else, we must make it clear whether this contract is valid or not.”
(omitted)
The next hearing will be held on December 7th, at 2pm at the Seoul District Courts, and two SM employees will attend as witnesses and testify on what the situation was like when the contract was signed.
Source: [Newsis]
Translation credits: jeeelim5@tohosomnia.net
Shared by: tohosomnia.net
Do not remove/add on any credits
Post a Comment