The court has ruled in favor of Alice of Hello Venus (real name Song Joo Hee) after her former agency tried to sue her for the compensation of claimed damages.

According to news outlet Asia Economy, Alice’s former agency (described as ‘A Entertainment’) filed a lawsuit against her for compensation of damages of about 80 million won (approximately $74,600). On April 30, the Seoul Central District Court ruled against the agency.

Alice had signed a 7-year exclusive contract with A Entertainment in August of 2009, and then began promoting under the stage name of ORA.

However, conflict arose the next year between Alice and the agency over issues such as her outfits. Alice argued that the agency had told her to wear clothing that was impossible to perform in, and although she had continued to request that they change her outfits, they did not change them due to financial issues. In July of 2010, Alice’s music video received a 19+ rating from a major broadcasting network because the outfits were too revealing and the choreography was too suggestive.

In 2011, Alice’s representatives sent a written notice of the termination of her exclusive contract to her agency through a law firm. In the notice, Alice stated, “The agency did not provide the support including lodgings and training that had been verbally promised, and during the period of my contract I was frequently defamed and made to feel ashamed by the CEO.”

After this, Alice signed an exclusive contract with another agency in 2012 and began promoting as a member of Hello Venus.

A Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Alice for the compensation of about 80 million won of their claimed spendings. They stated, “Even though we had provided Ms. Song with support including vocal and dance lessons, outfits, and music video production, she did not arrive for her scheduled appearances.”

During the lawsuit, Alice countered them by saying that she had not received the promised 2 million won (approximately $1,900) down payment from the agency, and she also was not supplied with either the opportunities or locations for proper training. She emphasized that the agency had told her to entertain at drinking parties, given her embarrassing outfits, and demanded large amounts of settlement money, which had damaged the trust between them and led to the termination of her contract.

The court ruled in Alice’s favor, stating that A Entertainment had not only stopped providing the support outlined in her exclusive contract and did not pay the down payment, they also had no evidence that they had provided accounting information for the sharing of profits.

The court also stated, “The agency has argued that Ms. Song violated duty of good faith practices under the terms of her exclusive contract, but there is no evidence that proves this.” They added, “We do not accept the claims of damages made by the agency on the basis of a breach of the exclusive contract.”

Source (1)