Group EXO members Chen, Baekhyun, and Xiumin (hereafter referred to as Chenbaeksi), who notified SM Entertainment of the termination of their exclusive contract, denied the theory of involvement by outside forces raised by SM.
On the 2nd, Chenbaek City said through Lawyer Lee Jae-hak, who acted as legal representative, "The decision to find one's own rights, such as requesting settlement data, was made by oneself after long agony and agony, and it is definitely not that any force intervened." issued a second statement.
Chen Baxi's side pointed out that SM's alleged intervention by external forces "is nothing more than false information to evade the essence of artists' legitimate exercise of rights and further mislead public opinion." He added, "The feelings of the artists who have come across SM's official materials mentioning a third external force are very devastating."
Regarding the conflict over the disclosure of settlement data, he refuted, saying, "It cannot be seen as fulfilling its obligations by 'reading'." Chenbaxi's side argues that there is a big difference between providing settlement data and allowing only viewing to be incomparable in terms of protecting artists' right to know and property rights.
Chenbaekshi said, “It is the settlement data that we have agreed to look at carefully for 30 days, but to come and see it with our own eyes is just to build a justification for SM to say, ‘Anyway, we showed the data, so we did our duty’. "The core and substance of the case was that SM consistently requested the provision of settlement data, but SM ultimately refused and ended up notifying us of the termination of the exclusive contract," he emphasized.
At the same time, Chenbaekshi revealed his will to continue EXO's activities. “Even if the exclusive contract with SM is terminated, we are looking for a way to faithfully continue other EXO activities. Even so, EXO's activities have preemptively suggested a proposal to negotiate together."
Chenbaxi added, "No matter what form the legal issues are resolved in the future, we will continue our activities as a team called EXO diligently and faithfully."Below is the full text of EXO's Chen, Baekhyun, and Xiumin's 2nd official position.<The stance of EXO members Baekhyun, Xiumin, and Chen (Baekhyun Byun, Minseok Kim, Jongdae Kim) >
June 2, 2023 (2nd round)
I am Lawyer Lee Jae-hak of Lin Law Firm, representing EXO's members Baekhyun, Xiumin, and Chen (Baekhyun Byun, Minseok Kim, Jongdae Kim, hereinafter referred to as 'artists'). Hereinafter, our legal representative would like to tell you the artists' position on the claim made by SM Entertainment (hereinafter referred to as 'SM') on June 1.
1. SM's assertion of intervention by outside forces is nothing more than false information to evade the essence of the legitimate exercise of rights by artists and furthermore to mislead public opinion.
The feelings of the artists who came across SM's official materials mentioning a third external force are very deplorable. It feels like SM's perspective on artists has been revealed, which makes me feel even more miserable.
Is it a third force?
Our artists are obviously adults who can think for themselves and take responsibility for their own decisions. And it is the subject that thinks and judges independently. I had doubts for decades, and I was able to muster up the fearful yet difficult courage on my own in the spirit of having to ask questions that I hadn't dared to ask when I was a rookie, even now, after a long time has passed.
Our artists asked and listened to many people around them about what was the right thing to do and how to come up with a wise solution. There were my family and acquaintances, seniors and juniors in the music industry, co-workers, and even staff who worked with us.
Some of them told us worrying stories, some of them warm encouragement, and some of them sent us support and encouragement. I can't help but ask if all of these people are the 3rd power, the impure power, the evil power.
Our artists are strong individuals who can make their own decisions and act on their own.
The decision to seek their rights, such as requesting settlement data, was made by our artists after long agony and agony.
Furthermore, SM claims that we have signed or attempted to sign double contracts with our artists, but Baekhyun, Chen, and Xiumin have not signed or attempted any other exclusive contracts other than the existing contracts with SM. SM should refrain from making false claims.
SM said that it would only allow 'viewing' without 'providing' because there is a concern that settlement data may also be provided to outside forces. However, even if artists receive settlement data and receive advice from their legal representative as well as from an accountant or anyone else, it is a legitimate exercise of their rights. Even in the exclusive contract, there is no provision that the artist must not show the material provided to the artist to others, and therefore must review it alone. Rather, there is only a clause in the contract that requires the artists to review material received from SM for 30 days and raise objections if necessary.
SM, who does not even provide settlement data, and our legal representative and celebrities around us who advise on the injustice of such a situation. One cannot help but question whether the situation is right for someone to fault whom.
What I would like to say again is that the artists and their legal representatives have consistently requested the provision of settlement data, but SM ultimately refused and ended up canceling the exclusive contract, which is the nature and substance of the case.
2. In the exclusive contract, the settlement data is 'provided', so it cannot be considered that the duty has been fulfilled by 'reading'.
The main premise of SM's claim is that SM's duty is to be fulfilled by giving the opportunity to 'view' the settlement data. However, in the exclusive contract, it is stipulated that settlement data is 'provided'. Therefore, 'viewing', which is simply an act of showing, cannot be regarded as fulfilling the duty.
Article 14, Paragraph 5 of the exclusive contract concluded between SM and the artists states, 'A (SM) must provide the following settlement data to B (artist) at the same time as payment of the settlement money. B may file an objection to A within 30 days from the date of receipt of the settlement data, such as overreporting of deducted expenses or underreporting of B's income, and A shall faithfully provide the basis for the settlement. ' was defined. Therefore, the data must be 'provided' rather than 'viewed', and the objection period of 30 days is counted from the date of 'receipt' of the data. It is not calculated from the date of 'viewing'.
And SM and the artists additionally signed an 'agreement' around 2014, and Article 4 of that is, 'A will provide the supporting data when paying settlement amount according to Articles 2 and 3 to Eul (Article 1. ), 'A must provide detailed settlement data to B once every six months according to the exclusive contract, and B may request an explanation from A (paragraph 2). It also stipulates that evidence or detailed settlement data must be 'provided'.
There is a big difference between allowing materials to be 'provided' and 'viewing' only in terms of protecting artists' right to know and property rights. In particular, settlement data is data under SM's control, so I would like to ask how it is possible to verify whether the details are correct or not by simply asking them to come and see them. And Article 14, Paragraph 5 of the exclusive contract grants a review period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the material, and the artist is required to sufficiently review the material during this 30-day period and raise any objection if there is any objection. is the content of
It is the settlement data that we have agreed to look at carefully for 30 days, but to come and see it with our own eyes, SM's argument that 'we showed the data anyway, so we did our duty' is just to build a justification. And since we could guess SM's intentions, we couldn't compromise by giving up receiving 'providing' and responding to 'viewing'.
For this reason, even in the standard contract notified by the Fair Trade Commission, 'A provides settlement data to B at the same time as payment of the settlement amount upon B's request', stipulating that 'provision' is required.
Fundamentally, refusing to provide data while citing infringement of trade secrets regarding requests for data on the achievements of the artists themselves cannot justify violating the exclusive contract.
3. Artists or our legal representatives have consistently requested the provision of settlement data. The core and substance of the case was that SM eventually refused and informed us of the termination of the exclusive contract.
SM, as you saw earlier, under the premise that it is enough to 'view' the settlement data, the artists had not raised any issues with the data before, but suddenly requested the provision of the settlement data while appointing the legal representative, and then suddenly again. It claims to have given notice of termination of the contract.
It is the legitimate right of artists to demand settlement data according to the exclusive contract. And regarding these legitimate rights, our legal representative gave legal advice and the artists took action, and SM's claim to the effect of 'artists suddenly started making claims because the legal representative changed' is not a valid exercise of right. It's nothing more than an argument not to go so far. Above all, claiming as if artists were being swayed by someone to provide settlement data is an act of ignoring the artists' high sense of rights and insight. Our legal representative confirmed the artist's high awareness of rights and high insight into the realization of the right to know in the consultation process so far.
And just as the records requested by proof of contents remain objective, the artists and our legal representative consistently requested 'provision' of the settlement data from the beginning. And SM maintained the position that 'reading' the settlement data is not enough. However, as you saw earlier, SM's claim was not in line with the exclusive contract and we could not accept it, and since the position of both sides was not narrowed in the end, the artists and our legal representative decided to terminate the exclusive contract according to the precedent. It's too early to do that.
To repeat the precedent, an exclusive contract is based on a high degree of trust, and if the agency does not fulfill its obligation to provide settlement data, the celebrity can review the settlement of profits and raise objections to the agency. Failure to provide settlement data is a reason for terminating the exclusive contract as the right to awards will not be properly guaranteed (see Seoul High Court 2020. 1. 31. Decision 2019 or 2034976. In other words, settlement data must be 'provided'. ).
This kind of progress is the progress between SM and the artists related to the settlement data. Unlike this, claiming that the artist or the legal representative has changed their position again and again is a different claim from the facts, and the core of this case It distorts and misleads reality.
4. Problems with the ultra-long exclusive contract period, which is unilaterally unfavorable to artists beyond the minimum reasonable extent
As already mentioned in today's first press release, artists have previously signed exclusive contracts with SM for over 12 to 13 years. This is very different from the standard exclusive contract for pop culture artists (singer-centered) notified by the Fair Trade Commission based on a contract period of 7 years, and is unilaterally disadvantageous to artists by exceeding the minimum reasonable level.
And SM is trying to claim a contract period of at least 17 or 18 years, respectively, by having the artists sign the subsequent exclusive contracts again, as the 12 to 13 year contract period is not enough.
It is pointed out again that the act of signing a follow-up exclusive contract falls under Article 45, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, 'act of trading with the other party by unfairly using one's trading position'. In other words, forcing a long-term period using a follow-up exclusive contract separately falls under 'Forcing Provision of Profits' or 'Provision of Disadvantages (Setting of Disadvantageous Transaction Conditions)' in Attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
Regarding this, SM argues that the artists had an attorney who was a lawyer at a large law firm at the time the artists signed the follow-up exclusive contract, but it is not reasonable to suddenly argue about the unfairness of the follow-up exclusive contract when the agent changed.
However, claiming that it is a problem because our legal representative was appointed to claim that an objectively unfair contract is unfair is to obscure the essence of the point.
Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the follow-up exclusive contract states, 'This contract... for 5 years from However, if the minimum number of albums stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 4 is not released within the same period, the contract period will be automatically extended until the fulfillment of this. There is no upper limit on how long it will be automatically extended.
In this way, the provision that the contract period is automatically extended until the number of released albums is filled, and there is no upper limit, is clearly a slave contract, and the legal representative is liable for 'acts of trading with the other party by unfairly using the trading position'. It is pointed out that it is applicable, and the artists are also in agreement.
Also, when the existing exclusive contract is over a year away, it is not fair to sign a follow-up exclusive contract that is so long and has no upper limit on the period to 'bind' the artists. SM has not paid artists any down payment for follow-up exclusive contracts.
Baekhyun, Xiumin, and Chen are seriously considering filing a complaint with the Fair Trade Commission regarding such long-term exclusive contracts and unfair follow-up contracts.
5. Regarding future EXO activities
Our artists are seeking ways to faithfully continue EXO activities together with other EXO members, even if their exclusive contract with SM is terminated. Even if Min leaves SM, the artist side has preemptively proposed a negotiation plan for EXO activities to be together.
Apart from the issue of resolving the legal relationship with SM, the artists are sincerely and deeply grateful for the great love and support that fans have sent to EXO for a long time. And no matter how the legal issues are resolved in the future, we will continue our activities as a team called EXO diligently and diligently.
Reporter Tae Yuna, Ten Asia youyou@tenasia.co.kr