On April 23, the Seoul Eastern District Court held its first hearing regarding the mutual lawsuits filed by the three members Chen, Baekhyun, and Xiumin and their agency. At the heart of the dispute is a crucial disagreement: whether a verbal agreement on the distribution of profits ever existed.
SM Entertainment has strongly denied the claim, claiming that the trio’s specific claim to receive 10% of revenue in exchange for guaranteed distribution fees lacks both legal and logical basis. The company stressed that previous criminal complaints relating to this issue had already led to a “no charges” decision by the investigating authorities.
sm entertainment criminal complaints against malicious online activity
" data-large-file="https://cdn.kbizoom.com/media/2025/10/03071633/sm-entertainment-criminal-complaints-against-malicious-online-activity-thumbnail-20251003t063140000z.webp" alt="sm entertainment criminal complaints against harmful online activities" class="wp-image-876979" srcset="https://cdn.kbizoom.com/media/2025/10/03071633/sm-entertainment-criminal-complaints-against-malicious-online-activity-thumbnail-20251003t063140000z.webp 1200w, https://cdn.kbizoom.com/media/2025/10/03071633/sm-entertainment-criminal-complaints-against-malicious-online-activity-thumbnail-20251003t063140000z-390x228.webp 390w, https://cdn.kbizoom.com/media/2025/10/03071633/sm-entertainment-criminal-complaints-against-malicious-online-activity-thumbnail-20251003t063140000z-768x448.webp 768w, https://cdn.kbizoom.com/media/2025/10/03071633/sm-entertainment-criminal-complaints-against-malicious-online-activity-thumbnail-20251003t063140000z-1024x597.webp 1024w, https://cdn.kbizoom.com/media/2025/10/03071633/sm-entertainment-criminal-complaints-against-malicious-online-activity-thumbnail-20251003t063140000z-780x455.webp 780w, https://cdn.kbizoom.com/media/2025/10/03071633/sm-entertainment-criminal-complaints-against-malicious-online-activity-thumbnail-20251003t063140000z-400x233.webp 400w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px"/>However, EXO-CBX’s legal team objected, insisting that such conclusions are not absolute. They supported him the absence of written documentation does not automatically invalidate the possibility of an agreement, especially in an industry where informal agreements have historically existed.
SM also pointed out that EXO-CBX had already received payments amounting to around KRW 50 billion (around US$36 million), questioning why artists would now demand further financial transparency.
In response, the trio said they had never received detailed sales contracts or revenue splits for album and concert documents that are generally essential to verify the correctness of agreements. This statement shifts the narrative from a simple contractual disagreement to a broader question of transparency within K-pop management systems.
This legal battle is more than just a financial disagreement: it reflects ongoing tensions between artists and agencies in the K-pop industry. Over the years, disputes over contractual fairness, revenue distribution and artists’ rights have increasingly come into focus.
For EXO-CBX, the case represents a fight for accountability and clarity. For SM Entertainment, it’s about maintaining contractual integrity and upholding its business practices.
The next hearing is scheduled for June 18, and industry observers are closely monitoring how this case could set a precedent for future relationships between artists and agencies.
Sources: Nate News
