Brave Entertainment Releases Statement On Court Decision Over Samuel's Contract + Plans To Appeal

On November 22, Brave Entertainment released a statement regarding the court’s decision on Samuel’s contract.

In 2019, Samuel filed a legal complaint against Brave Entertainment after unsuccessfully attempting to terminate his contract with the agency, detailing the specific issues that led to a breach of trust. On November 17, Seoul Central District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Samuel, and dismissed Brave Entertainment’s suit for damages of 1 billion won (approximately $846,380).

Below is the full statement from Brave Entertainment:

This is Brave Entertainment.

We reveal our statement below regarding the ruling on November 17 for the lawsuit raised by Samuel against the company to verify the non-existence of an exclusive contract.

The court rejected all the claims made by the plaintiff (hereafter referred to as Samuel) including “coercion to do work he has no obligation to do,” “violating the duty to cooperate regarding education and admission,” “signing a contract for promotions in Japan and China without prior consent,” “forging a private document,” and more. However, based on the circumstance that a portion of the billing information was provided slightly late, it was judged that the trust between the two sides was damaged, and the termination of the contract was recognized.

We provided both monetary and emotional support through tuition, monthly rent, personal exercise, and expensive clothing for an artist that didn’t generate profit for many years despite our complete investment costing over billions of won (approximately several hundred thousand dollars), and we paid tens of millions of won (approximately tens of thousands of dollars) for publicity numerous times, trying to walk the road to success together somehow. This was the same way Brave Brothers didn’t hold back on support and encouraged effort from the Brave Girls’ members, who were with us during a similar period, and he might have even put in more care and effort [into Samuel].

Even if the company that thoughtfully supported him to that extent was at fault in providing a portion of the billing information slightly late, we regrettably wonder how it’s possible to determine with that sole situation that all previous kind intentions and effort have faded and the trust was damaged to the extent of terminating a contract within a few months.

The fact that [Samuel] is now claiming to have never agreed to the promotions in China after his mother personally uploaded onto her social media to brag about it, that he’s claiming that he didn’t agree to signing the contract despite many articles having been distributed after he was at the scene of the contract signing with a large-scale agency considered top-tier in Japan, and that he’s claiming that the company forged documents that he signed himself, will make it plenty evident to know which side is claiming the truth. They even drew up papers containing false information completely different from the truth such as, “the investigative agency demands submission,” “it’s the court’s order, compulsory measures such as issuing warrants are also scheduled,” and “we request the data on behalf of the court and prosecution,” and we don’t think any more explanation is needed regarding the illegal actions made to fool and use the third party.

We hope to receive the court’s decision once more through an appeal. Even if we can’t persuade the courts without distorting the truth like above, we will sincerely do our best to explain with only the truth.

Source (1)