An idol singer who was forced by his agency to sign a promissory note worth billions of won over a personal matter has won a legal battle, with the court siding with the artist. This ruling is expected to serve as a wake-up call for the entertainment industry's chronic issue of so-called "slave contracts".
A dream collateralized by a single “trap letter”
For A, a member of a four-member boy group, debuting was a desperate dream. At 28, considered late to start an idol career, he bet everything on it. But that dream was nearly shattered in an instant.
On January 8, 2023, A spent a night with a woman he met while drinking with friends from his hometown. Upon learning this, his agency, Company B, presented him with a promissory note just a week later, on January 15. The contents were shocking.
“the undersigned (A) admits to all facts concerning the scandal and agrees to compensate for any and all financial damages incurred.”
The scope of compensation was virtually unlimited: the entire production and promotion cost of the group’s first album, penalties under the exclusive contract, and additional unspecified penalties.
It even included a clause stating that if A couldn’t pay, the agency could demand compensation from his parents or relatives.
Despite this, A signed the document out of desperation to stay in the group. Yet only two days later, on January 17, the agency announced his departure from the group and termination of contract. Later, they used the signed note to sue A for 200 million won ($140K USD) in damages.
Court: “private life issues are not contract breaches” promissory note deemed invalid
The agency argued that A’s se***al activity was a clear violation of his duty to maintain public decency as an idol. However, Judge Kim Noah of the Seoul Central District Court systematically dismissed the agency’s claims and denied all of their demands.
The court first evaluated whether A’s actions truly violated the “obligation to maintain dignity” clause in his contract. The ruling stated that, in order to constitute a breach, the act must significantly damage one’s dignity to the extent that it interferes with the performance of public cultural duties.
The court ruled:
“the defendant’s (A’s) consensual se***l encounter was not a criminal act, nor was it reported in the media.”
Therefore, it couldn’t be seen as a violation of article 6, clause 3 of the contract. In short, since it wasn't a crime and didn’t become publicly known, it didn't impact his career, so it couldn’t be grounds for breach of contract.
Next, the court assessed the validity of the promissory note, the heart of the dispute. The judge ruled that the document was invalid under civil code article 104 as an unfair legal act.
Taking into account that A was older than typical idol trainees and had previously debuted unsuccessfully, the court found that the agency exploited his desperation to force him into accepting a massive and legally groundless financial burden.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the agency’s 200 million won claim entirely and ordered the agency to cover all legal costs. The attempt to shackle an artist using his dream as leverage was soundly struck down by the judiciary.
source: https://lawtalknews.co.kr/article/NLJY02VBC6QX
0 Comments