The FIFTY FIFTY incident is now entering a new phase of mediation referral, potentially paving the way for a dramatic agreement.
On August 1, the 50th Civil Division (C) of the Seoul Central District Court made the decision to refer the case to mediation, following a lawsuit filed by four members of FIFTY FIFTY against their agency ATTRAKT. The members sought an injunction to suspend the validity of the exclusive contract.
Referral to mediation is a legal procedure aimed at resolving a lawsuit through mutual understanding and agreement between the parties involved. It provides an opportunity for both sides to reach an agreement during the mediation process. In this particular case, where both sides initially took strong stances, the court has taken the initial step in pushing for a resolution through an agreement.
This new phase of mediation referral represents a turning point in the FIFTY FIFTY incident, shifting the focus from litigation towards negotiation and compromise. It presents a chance for both sides to express their concerns, listen to each other's perspectives, and work towards a mutually beneficial outcome.
In response, netizens on a Korean online community didn't seem too optimistic about the news, and they shared their thoughts on the change to the case.
"If they can save this by agreeing to come back, that agency is a god."
"Their image is already done."
"The public has already turned their backs."
"I feel like their image has already deteriorated. It's too bad."
"CEO, I feel so sorry for you ㅠㅠㅠㅠㅠ Just pick out a 2nd generation group."
"The FIFTY girls don't seem like they know what they're doing...If they were going to negotiate, they would've done so already. Just let them leave and try to do whatever they want to do, and seek out a 2nd generation group to promote."
"The future of this group is already over."
"I think it would be better to file a claim for damages and go their separate ways."
"It's not a normal process to go back to the agency at this point. It's going to be a contract cancellation penalty agreement process."
"Isn't it rather a loss to the company if they bring them back in? The image of the members is not good at this point either."
If the members were interested in working out their issues, they wouldn't have ghosted the CEO and filed for trademarks behind his back. They knew what they were doing and it's not a case of misunderstanding between both sides. The court should've realized this and instead ruled on the case. They pretty much gave the members a way out but I think the ATTRAKT CEO is a little naïve and thinks he can reform the relationship and work with the members again. Like most relationships, once trust is broken, it's extremely difficult to mend.
16 more replies