Dispatch reveals why FIFTY FIFTY’s contract suspension plea with ATTRAKT was denied

The recent legal attempt by ‘FIFTY FIFTY‘ has been turned down due to insufficient reasons.

The judge ruled against the claims made by ‘FIFTY FIFTY‘, which included concerns about contracts, health matters, and support. The court stated, “There isn’t enough valid justification for these claims.”

On August 28th, the 50th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court dismissed ‘FIFTY FIFTY‘s request to halt their contract with ‘ATTRAKT‘, the agency they are signed with.

According to the court, ‘FIFTY FIFTY‘ could not provide strong evidence for contract termination and couldn’t hold the agency responsible for trust issues.

FIFTY FIFTY‘ had applied for this legal move on June 19th, highlighting three main concerns: problems with settlements, a lack of support for health issues, and insufficient backing.

Firstly, they raised concerns about a settlement discrepancy. They pointed out that their agency, ‘ATTRAKT, had omitted ‘music revenue‘ from their payments.

However, it turned out this mistake was allegedly made by an accounting staff member from ‘The Givers‘, an outsourcing company. Once ‘ATTRAKT‘ was aware of this mistake in June, they corrected it.

The court mentioned, “It’s hard to say that ‘ATTRAKT‘ significantly violated their settlement responsibilities or trust to a degree that warrants action.

Moving on, ‘FIFTY FIFTY‘ claimed ‘ATTRAKT‘ didn’t fulfill their health protection obligations. However, the court found evidence that ‘ATTRAKT‘ addressed the members’ health concerns promptly and adjusted their schedules accordingly.

The court commented, “Based on what’s been shown so far, it’s not well-proven that the agency neglected their duty to manage and care for the members’ health.”

Lastly, ‘FIFTY FIFTY‘ argued that due to changes in the outsourcing company (The Givers) and ‘ATTRAKT‘s’ challenges in supporting their entertainment activities, they couldn’t provide sufficient help.

However, the court mentioned, “It’s not straightforward to conclude that the agency violated the exclusive contract due to changes in outsourcing.”

The court also pointed out that ‘FIFTY FIFTY‘ didn’t communicate their issues with the agency before taking legal action. The judge highlighted, “They abruptly terminated the contract, citing Aran’s surgery as a reason for halting activities.”

The court added, “Even considering ‘FIFTY FIFTY‘s’ requests for corrections, it’s not clear that the agency failed to make amends or prolonged their obligations. It’s also not easy to say that the trust between them has completely broken down.”



Leave a Reply