VIVIZ wins injunction against Big Planet Made Entertainment as court recognizes unpaid settlement fees

VIVIZ (Eunha, SinB, and Umji) has secured a significant legal victory in its ongoing dispute with agency Big Planet Made Entertainment (BPM), with the court ruling in favor of the trio at the preliminary injunction stage.

The decision allows VIVIZ to continue pursuing independent activities while the main lawsuit proceeds and opens the possibility for the members to determine their future career paths independently.

On June 5, the Civil Division 50 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Lee Sang Hoon, granted the injunction filed by the three VIVIZ members seeking suspension of the validity of their exclusive contracts with Big Planet Made Entertainment.

In its ruling, the court stated that the effectiveness of the parties' exclusive contracts would be suspended until a final judgment is rendered in the main lawsuit. The court also prohibited the agency from negotiating or entering into agreements with third parties against the members’ wishes, demanding entertainment activities from the members, or requesting third parties to restrict their activities.

VIVIZ formally notified the agency of contract termination on March 4, citing BPM’s failure to fulfill its obligation to pay settlement fees, inadequate management support, and a resulting breakdown of trust between the parties. Since then, both sides have engaged in a legal battle over the validity of the exclusive contracts.

According to the court’s decision, one of the key factors behind the ruling was the agency’s failure to pay settlement fees owed to the members. The court determined that each member was entitled to receive more than 100 million KRW (approximately 73,000 USD) in unpaid settlement fees and concluded that “it is reasonable to find that the respondent violated its obligation to pay settlement fees.”

During the proceedings, BPM argued that payment delays were caused by an alleged attempt by external parties to seize management control of the company and by what it described as false media reports concerning Chairman Cha Ga Won. However, the court rejected these claims, stating that “the alleged management takeover attempt by external forces and false media reports are circumstances unrelated to the applicants.”

The issue of financial transparency also emerged as a major point of contention. The court noted that the settlement statements provided by the agency only listed revenue and expense figures without supporting documentation such as tax invoices or receipts. Furthermore, BPM failed to provide additional supporting materials or guidance on how the members could access and review the relevant records.

Attorney Woo Hong Gyun of Shinwon Law Firm, legal representative for VIVIZ, welcomed the ruling, stating that the court had fully accepted the members’ claims. He added that the unpaid settlement amounts identified in the decision represent only a portion of the total sums owed and that the claims are expected to be expanded during the main lawsuit.

VIVIZ was formed in 2021 by former GFriend (Girlfriend) members Eunha, SinB, and Umji following the group’s disbandment. The trio signed exclusive contracts with Big Planet Made Entertainment in February 2022 and has since been promoted under the agency.

The VIVIZ case is part of a broader trend involving artists affiliated with labels under the One Hundred Label, many of whom have raised concerns over unpaid settlement fees.

Earlier, nine members of K-pop boy group The Boyz won a similar injunction against One Hundred Label regarding the suspension of their exclusive contracts. Former BPM artists Taemin and BE'O also signed with new agencies after notifying the company of contract termination. Meanwhile, singer Lee Mu jin and entertainer-singer Lee Seung Gi both cited unpaid settlement fees among the reasons for terminating their contracts. Lee Mu Jin is currently pursuing his own injunction proceedings against the agency concerning the validity of his exclusive contract.

The ruling marks another notable development in the growing number of disputes within the Korean entertainment industry over artist settlements, contractual transparency, and agency accountability.