Violation of Trainee Contract, Court Says "Compensate 5 Million Won"
An idol trainee approaching debut has been ordered by the court to bear responsibility for damages due to actions such as getting a tattoo without the consent of the agency and leaving the dormitory without permission.
This ruling regarding the violation of exclusive contracts between entertainment agencies and trainees once again highlights the importance of contract compliance in the entertainment industry.
According to a report by the Munhwa Ilbo on May 23, the Seoul Central District Court's civil case number 96, Judge Lee Baek-kyu ruled that trainee A must compensate the agency 5 million won in a lawsuit filed by an entertainment company against former trainee A.
A must compensate the agency 5 million won
A signed an exclusive contract with the agency in June 2018.
The contract included clauses on profit distribution as well as restrictions on behaviors that could harm the dignity of a public figure, such as hairstyles, tattoos, dating, entering clubs, drinking, and smoking. Notably, it also specified a penalty clause that required a compensation of 30 million won for each violation of these restrictions.
Breach of Contract and its Consequences
However, just four months after signing the contract, in October 2018, A left the dormitory without permission and was caught for receiving a tattoo on the back of his neck without the agency's consent, which led to a warning.
Such behavior resulted in deteriorating relationships with other members, ultimately leading to A being excluded from the final member lineup before debut.
In response, the agency filed a lawsuit claiming a total of over 80 million won in damages, including the damages resulting from A's breach of contract obligations and the penalty specified in the contract.
The court partially acknowledged the agency's claims and recognized A's responsibility for the breach of contract, but limited the compensation amount to 5 million won, significantly lower than the original claim.
The court stated, "A has an obligation to pay liquidated damages to the agency," but added, "considering that the unauthorized departure occurred only once and the tattoo was small and not easily visible on the back of the neck, the severity of the violation is not significant."
Image sources: Materials for understanding the article / pexels, Materials for understanding the article / gettyimagesbank
