ONE HUNDRED to Appeal After Court Rejects ₩8 Billion Damages Lawsuit Against Former THE BOYZ Member Ju Haknyeon

South Korean court has dismissed entertainment agency ONE HUNDRED’s lawsuit seeking approximately ₩8 billion (around US$5.8 million) in damages from former THE BOYZ member Ju Haknyeon, ruling that the agency failed to prove sufficient grounds for terminating his exclusive contract. Following the decision, ONE HUNDRED said it intends to appeal.

The ruling marks a significant development in a legal dispute that has drawn attention within the K-pop industry, as it addresses the standards required for an entertainment company to end an exclusive contract over an artist’s private conduct.

Seoul Court Rejects Agency’s Damages Claim

According to The Fact, the Civil Division 28 of the Seoul Central District Court on July 23 dismissed ONE HUNDRED’s claim for approximately ₩8 billion in damages against Ju Haknyeon.

The court concluded that the agency’s claim lacked sufficient legal grounds, siding with the former idol in the dispute.

At the center of the case was whether Ju’s reported conduct met the contractual provision allowing termination if an artist commits an act that damages the dignity or reputation expected of a public entertainer to the extent that it significantly interferes with entertainment activities.

The court found that the legal standard had not been met.

Why the Contract Was Terminated

The dispute stems from an incident that reportedly occurred in June of last year when Ju Haknyeon traveled to Japan to attend an awards ceremony.

During the trip, Japanese media published images showing Ju spending time at a drinking gathering with Asuka Kirara, a well-known former Japanese adult film actress. The reports also described physical contact between the two, sparking controversy online.

Ju Haknyeon denied allegations related to the incident, maintaining that claims made against him were untrue.

Despite his denial, ONE HUNDRED determined that the incident constituted grounds for terminating his exclusive contract under its morality clause. The agency subsequently notified Ju that his contract had been terminated and later filed a damages lawsuit seeking roughly ₩8 billion—more than five times the reported ₩1.5 billion exclusive contract payment referenced in the case.

Court: Private Conduct Alone Was Not Enough

In explaining its decision, the court distinguished between behavior that may attract public criticism and conduct that legally justifies contract termination.

The judges stated that Ju’s meeting with Asuka Kirara fell within the scope of his private life. While acknowledging that his actions could be viewed as inappropriate for a member of an idol group, the court ruled that they did not amount to a serious violation of dignity under the terms of the exclusive contract.

The court also noted that allegations of prostitution had previously resulted in a police decision not to refer the case for prosecution. Based on that outcome, the judges determined that those allegations could not serve as valid grounds for ending the exclusive agreement.

As a result, the court concluded that ONE HUNDRED did not have sufficient justification to terminate the contract on the basis argued in the lawsuit.

Why This Matters

The decision is notable because it highlights the legal distinction between public controversy and contractual liability in South Korea’s entertainment industry.

Exclusive contracts between agencies and artists often contain clauses related to maintaining an entertainer’s image or reputation. However, this ruling suggests that courts may require agencies to demonstrate that an artist’s conduct reaches a sufficiently serious threshold before contract termination can be considered legally justified.

The judgment does not determine whether Ju Haknyeon’s actions were appropriate from an image-management perspective. Instead, it focuses on whether those actions satisfied the contractual requirements necessary to end the agreement and seek substantial financial damages.

Because the court ruled that the reported conduct did not meet that standard, the damages claim was dismissed.

What’s Next

ONE HUNDRED has announced that it plans to appeal the Seoul Central District Court’s decision.

An appeal would move the dispute to a higher court, where the legal interpretation of the contract and the agency’s grounds for termination could be reviewed again.

For now, the first-instance ruling stands in Ju Haknyeon’s favor. No additional details regarding the agency’s appeal timetable or any further legal proceedings have been disclosed.