Court Grants Injunction to Suspend Exclusive Contract Effect Against Actor Lee Ji-hoon's Agency

"Mutual Trust Collapsed, Recovery Seems Difficult"

Actor Lee Ji-hoon. / Photo by SBS Drama 'The Night of the Shining Stars of Goho' broadcast screen capture.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Actor Lee Ji-hoon’s application for a provisional injunction to suspend the effect of his exclusive contract with his agency has been accepted by the court.

According to the legal community on the 22nd, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 50 (Chief Presiding Judge Lee Seung-ryeon) partially accepted Lee’s provisional injunction request against his agency, GTree Creative (hereinafter GTree), and ruled to “suspend the effect of the exclusive contract and related agreements between the two parties.”

The court stated, “Considering the KakaoTalk messages exchanged between the parties regarding Lee’s private life, the attitudes of the parties after the dispute arose, the progress of the lawsuit, and Lee’s statements during the hearing, it appears clear that mutual trust has broken down to the extent that it is difficult to expect management duties and entertainment activities to continue.”

It added, “GTree has failed to specifically explain what management plans it has regarding Lee’s entertainment activities, making it difficult to restore the close cooperation and trust between the parties.”

With the provisional injunction granted, GTree will no longer be able to assert the validity of the exclusive contract with Lee until the final judgment of the related main lawsuit is confirmed.

Lee signed an exclusive contract in September 2018, entrusting GTree with exclusive management rights and has been active under this contract. However, in July, he applied to the court for a provisional injunction to suspend the contract’s effect, citing reasons such as “the agency’s invasion of privacy.”

During the trial, Lee’s side claimed that GTree tracked Lee’s private life through managers, verbally abused Lee and his parents, and failed to properly fulfill obligations related to the distribution and payment of settlement funds by not providing settlement documents.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.