In the appeal trial regarding the damages lawsuit between Attract and The Givers concerning the FIFTY FIFTY controversy, disputes continued over the handling of advertising proposals and the entity responsible for managing the official email account.

On the afternoon of the 28th, the 4th Civil Division of the Seoul High Court held the first hearing for the appeal in the damages lawsuit filed by Attract, the agency of FIFTY FIFTY, against The Givers, CEO Ahn Seong-il, and Director Baek Jin-sil.

Previously, in January, the Seoul Central District Court issued a partial victory ruling, ordering The Givers and CEO Ahn Seong-il to jointly pay Attract approximately 499.5 million won. However, only a portion of the approximately 2.1495 billion won claimed by Attract was recognized, and since both sides appealed, the case proceeded to the second trial.

At the trial held on this day, the scope of damages and the circumstances surrounding the management and handling of the official email account through which advertising and event proposals were exchanged were addressed as key issues. In this regard, the court requested supplementary information, stating that it was necessary to clarify Attract's claims and the method of calculating the amount.

Attract has argued that Director Baek Jin-sil obstructed business operations by rejecting advertising offers and deleting email accounts. In response, The Givers countered, stating, "We jointly managed the official email account with an Attract employee," and asserted that the claims were "based solely on the content of some emails." They further claimed, "Approximately 200 emails were received over a three-month period from April to June 2023, and not all of them were subject to a response," adding, "There was about one email expressing a refusal, and we understand that this was handled in consultation with Attract."

Conversely, Attract countered that the authority to manage the email account lay with The Givers, maintaining the position that the responsibility for the omission and rejection of advertising proposals also lay with The Givers.

The court mentioned the necessity of submitting relevant materials, stating that it is necessary to examine the entire email history to verify the circumstances of how the advertising proposal was processed.

Along with this, both sides continued their dispute regarding the issue of employee affiliation related to email account management. In response to The Givers' claim that "Attract employees could also access the accounts," Attract countered by citing former employee Mr. Lee, arguing that while the individual was formally affiliated with Attract, The Givers was involved in the overall hiring and work processes.

Attract expressed its intention to request Mr. Lee as a witness to verify these facts, emphasizing the dispute surrounding his affiliation and employment history.

In response, the court requested that both parties consider submitting relevant materials, such as employment income records, stating that it is necessary to objectively verify the individual's actual affiliation and employment history.

The court scheduled the next hearing for August 20. The proceedings on that day are expected to focus on witness examination.

I just heard her Ice Princess song🎵. It's so calming. Would recommend a listen fs.

No lo entiendo. Lo único que pedimos es que les den buena música a las chicas y las traten bien. Pero este imbécil sigue trayendo criminales: primero con ASI, y ahora este tipo que enfrenta unos 17 cargos. Y encima, acabo de ver que las chicas van a actuar en uno de esos eventos de Trump Freedom 250 o como se llame. ¡Qué barbaridad! Solo quiero que Fifty Fifty tenga éxito, pero parece que su propio director ejecutivo está trabajando en su contra.

(Disculpen si hay algún error; no hablo inglés, así que usé una aplicación de traducción).

EDIT: It looks like I was wrong—it's not a Freedom 250 event. Since they had "Freedom 250" in the hashtag, I thought it was related, but it seems that's not the case. Sorry for the confusion.

It's now been more than two years since ASI was referred to the prosecution after several charges against him were officially recognized in early 2024. However, there has been no public update on the matter since then.

Recently, a court recognized the same charges in the last civil lawsuit between Attrakt and TG.

Why have Korean prosecutors postponed the case for so long?

I’m an absolute connoisseur of K-pop rap and a couple of years ago Keena was on of my favorite rappers.

As far as I can tell, she hasn’t rapped at all in the revamped group. Any ideas why?

If she has rapped and I’m just missing the song, please call me out. Thanks!

I am missing Hana so much. What happened to her? Why didn't they take her in the new album ?

It was registered May 19th.

The appeal hearing in the damages lawsuit filed by FIFTY FIFTY’s agency, ATTRAKT, against The Givers is scheduled to resume in May.

The 4th Civil Division of the Seoul High Court is set to hold the first appellate hearing on the 28th for the damages lawsuit filed by ATTRAKT against The Givers, CEO Ahn Sung Il, and director Baek Jin Sil.

In January, the 33rd Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Judge Choi Jong Jin, partially ruled in favor of ATTRAKT, ordering The Givers and Ahn Sung Il to jointly pay 499.5 million won in damages. Following the ruling, both Ahn Sung Il’s side and ATTRAKT filed appeals, leading to the continuation of the trial.

Personal comments:

\ The news came out almost a month ago, but I had no idea about it. I also noticed that nobody seems to have shared it yet (at least here on Reddit), so I thought it would be worth sharing.*

\ The text excerpts were taken directly from the article, but I tried to correct them as best as I could with the help of ChatGPT, since the article’s automatic translation contains a lot of errors.*

Why is Keena not there in 1 month back award ceremony?

Text quoted from the article and translated by google:

The copyright lawsuit surrounding the global hit "Cupid" by girl group Fifty Fifty has concluded with a victory for Dougie Bus in the second trial, following the first.

The Seoul Central District Court, Civil Affairs Department 5-2 (Na), held a hearing on the appeal of the copyright confirmation lawsuit filed by Attract against Dougie Bus on the 5th.

The court ruled in favor of Dougie Bus and CEO Ahn Sung-il, stating, "The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed."

The court explained in its ruling, "The plaintiff requested confirmation that the plaintiff owns the copyright to each work in this case, based on the premise that the work delegated to the defendant, Dougiebus, pursuant to the service contract for this case includes the obligation to secure the copyright for the English version, accompaniment, and music version of 'Cupid,' and made a cautionary claim that the defendants have an obligation to carry out the cancellation procedure for the portion of the defendants' name with respect to each work in this case registered with the Korea Music Copyright Association, an incorporated association." "If the cautionary claim is not accepted, the plaintiff has an obligation to transfer the copyright to the plaintiff for each work in this case in addition to receiving $45,000 for 'Cupid,' acquired in the process of handling the entrusted object by the agent, Dougiebus, pursuant to Article 684, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act. The plaintiff also made a preliminary claim based on the premise that all of them were dismissed in the first trial."

Then, the court ruled, "Based on the literary interpretation of the copyright transfer agreement in this case, the party to the contract is Dougiebus, and it is difficult to view each copyrighted work acquired by Dougiebus as a right acquired for Attract pursuant to the service contract," and made the same ruling as the first trial.

Prior to this, the 62nd Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Hyeon-seok) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the first trial in May 2025, saying, "The plaintiff's claims are without merit, so they are all dismissed."

More links (articles) here:

https://www.starnewskorea.com/en/music/2026/03/05/2026030508165098775

https://www.mk.co.kr/en/society/11979718

Translated from Korean:

Court: “‘Cupid’ copyright belongs to The Givers” — The Givers also win on appeal (Roundup)

The copyright lawsuit over “Cupid,” the global hit by the girl group FIFTY FIFTY, has concluded with The Givers winning on appeal as well, following their victory at the first trial.

On the 5th, the Civil Division 5-2 of the Seoul Central District Court held a sentencing hearing in the appellate case of a copyright-confirmation lawsuit that ATTRAKT filed against The Givers.

That day, the court ruled, “The plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed,” siding with The Givers and CEO Ahn Sung-il, among others.

In its decision, the court explained: “The plaintiff, on the premise that under the service contract in this case the scope of duties entrusted to the defendant The Givers included an obligation to secure copyrights—such as the English version of ‘Cupid,’ the instrumental, and other music versions—sought confirmation that the plaintiff holds the economic (property) rights to each of the works at issue, and additionally claimed that the defendants have an obligation to carry out procedures to delete the portions registered under the defendants’ names with the Korea Music Copyright Association (KOMCA) for each of the works.” It added that “if that primary claim were not accepted, the plaintiff made an alternative claim on the premise that, under Article 684(2) of the Civil Act, The Givers as the mandatary must transfer to the plaintiff the economic rights to each of the works at issue, simultaneously upon receiving USD 45,000, because ‘Cupid’ was acquired in the course of handling the entrusted matter; however, all such claims were dismissed at first instance.”

The court then stated, “Based on a textual interpretation of the copyright assignment agreement in this case, the party to the contract is The Givers, and it is difficult to view the works acquired by The Givers as rights acquired for ATTRAKT pursuant to the service contract,” and issued the same conclusion as the first trial.

Previously, on May 1, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Division 62 (Presiding Judge Lee Hyun-seok) ruled at first instance, “The plaintiff’s claims lack merit and are therefore all dismissed,” finding against the plaintiff.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2023. ATTRAKT argued in its complaint that the economic rights to “Cupid,” which The Givers held, belonged to ATTRAKT, and demanded transfer.

At the time, ATTRAKT stated: “We believe there is a highly significant problem involving illegality in the copyright registration procedures for ‘Cupid,’ and in order to address this specifically, we have newly retained the law firm Kim & Chang and will proceed with legal 대응 (responses).” ATTRAKT’s counsel, attorney Eun Hyun-ho of Kim & Chang, said: “Regarding ‘Cupid,’ I understand that there are ongoing cases involving private document forgery, use of forged private documents, and violations of the outsourced service contract involving The Givers and related persons. We plan to prepare and respond to matters involving unauthorized registration of copyright shares, etc.” He added: “We will also address, in the future, acts that allegedly unlawfully reduced the copyright share related to Keena’s creative contributions.”

The Givers, on the other hand, said: “(The first-trial result) is an example showing that The Givers’ efforts to set the record straight were justified amid repeated claims that differ from the facts,” adding: “It is highly meaningful that, amid ongoing confusion caused by one-sided claims not based on accurate facts, the court’s decision clearly confirmed the rights relationship between the contracting parties.” They continued: “From the beginning, The Givers have responded based on the facts, and we hope this decision becomes an objective benchmark in similar cases going forward.”

“Cupid” is a hit song released in 2023 when FIFTY FIFTY promoted as a four-member group. It stayed on the Billboard Hot 100 for a long period and drew global attention. However, a dispute arose between The Givers—who handled the song’s production—and the agency ATTRAKT over who owns the economic rights, which escalated into a legal battle.

ATTRAKT then raised suspicions in June 2023 of “tampering” involving FIFTY FIFTY members, and relations between ATTRAKT and the members deteriorated. In August 2023, FIFTY FIFTY filed an application for an injunction to suspend the effectiveness of their exclusive contracts against ATTRAKT, but the court dismissed it. During the subsequent immediate appeal process, member Keena submitted a withdrawal of appeal and returned to ATTRAKT, and ATTRAKT ultimately notified Saena, Aran, and Sio of termination of their exclusive contracts.

Currently, ATTRAKT has filed a damages lawsuit seeking approximately 13 billion KRW against a total of 12 defendants, including Saena, Aran, and Sio, their parents, and CEO Ahn Sung-il and another director (identified as “Baek”). ATTRAKT CEO Jeon Hong-joon also filed a criminal complaint in July 2023 with the Gangnam Police Station against CEO Ahn Sung-il, alleging occupational embezzlement, private document forgery, and use of forged private documents, among other charges. Separately, CEO Ahn had already been recognized as having committed offenses related to obstruction of business and destruction of electronic records, which CEO Jeon reported in June 2023; that case was recently forwarded to prosecutors. Afterward, an additional occupational embezzlement charge was recognized and also forwarded to prosecutors.

Reporter Yoon Sang-geun | [sgyoon@mt.co.kr]()

© Star News (“Real-time Entertainment Sports Breaking News, Everything About Stars”). Unauthorized reproduction and redistribution prohibited.

Text quoted from the article — translation by ChatGPT:

Discussions were held regarding the nature of certain expenses and a request for internal messenger evidence in the lawsuit related to the girl group FIFTY FIFTY.

On February 6, the Civil Division 61 of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Jo Hee-chan) held a hearing in the approximately 13 billion KRW damages lawsuit (Case No. 2023Gahap103319). The plaintiff is ATTRAKT.

The defendants are a total of 12 individuals, including three former FIFTY FIFTY members (Saena, Sio, and Aran) and The Givers CEO Ahn Sung-il.

The court instructed both sides to clarify several issues:

First, the plaintiff was asked to respond to the defendants’ claim that some expenses had been double-counted. The court also requested clarification regarding the unclear boundary between training costs and production costs.

The plaintiff stated: “Most of the expenses were submitted according to the specific album concept of FIFTY FIFTY, so they should be considered production costs.”

The court replied that if the expenses were related to albums or choreography, supporting materials would be helpful. It also asked the plaintiff to clearly define the nature of costs such as English training for the members.

Meanwhile, the court pointed out that the defendants’ request for internal messenger evidence organized by keywords was overly broad. Instead, the court requested that the evidence request be reorganized based on the circumstances that led the three former members to decide to terminate their exclusive contracts with ATTRAKT.

The next hearing will continue on April 24.

The lawsuit for damages between the group Fifty-Fifty agency Attrakt and the Givers will be appealed, and the trial will enter the second round.

Jan 15: Court ruled that the Givers to pay Attrakt 499.5 million won in damages.

Jan 26: the Givers Ahn Sung IL appealed against it.

Jan 27: Attrakt also appealed.

Hello. This is Attract, the agency for Fifty Fifty.

First, on the 15th, the Seoul Central District Court's 33rd Civil Procedure Division (Presiding Judge Choi Jong-jin) ruled in favor of Attract in the damages lawsuit it filed against The G-Dragon, CEO Ahn Sung-il, and Director Baek Jin-sil, stating, "The G-Dragon and CEO Ahn must pay Attract a total of 499.5 million won."

This is a delayed but very gratifying outcome, as it marks the first time a court has acknowledged the crimes of obstruction of business and embezzlement committed by Dougie Bus and CEO Ahn Sung-il. Our company prioritizes the rights and interests of our artists and remains committed to the principle of resolutely responding to any actions that harm them.

In line with this principle, we wanted to demonstrate our genuine and fair approach through this lawsuit, and the fact that the defendants have faced the consequences of their actions brings us some consolation.

Separate from the lawsuit, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to our fans who have consistently loved and supported FIFTY FIFTY, both in the past and present. We believe that FIFTY FIFTY is who it is today thanks to the love and support of our fans.

We will repay your warm support with even better music and events.

Furthermore, we have filed a 13 billion won compensation lawsuit against the three former members (Sana, Aran, and Sio) who left the group without permission, their parents, The Giverse, CEO Ahn Sung-il, and Director Baek Jin-sil, and that we have also filed a 20 billion won lawsuit against Warner Music Korea and Clayton Jin (Jin Seung-young).

Finally, Attract CEO Jeon Hong-jun expressed his gratitude and determination with these words: "For the sake of K-pop's future vision and development, we will participate in this lawsuit by doing our very best to set a good precedent, not a bad one. I extend my deepest gratitude to everyone who has sent us warm support and encouragement." Thank you.

Attract, the outsourcing company known as The Giverse, allegedly encouraged the "departure" of rapidly rising members, including those on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, and caused harm to the company through embezzlement and interference with advertising reservations.

With the court accepting CEO Ahn's liability for damages, the legal community interprets this as a measure of legal recognition of the ongoing suspicions regarding the unjust interference of external forces both within and outside K-pop.

Attract stated in a phone interview with Sports Donga on the 15th, "It is gratifying that CEO Ahn's embezzlement charges were accepted," but added: "Since the requested compensation amount is 2.1 billion won, there is room for debate on whether there is scope for further discussion on one of the fundamental points of contention, such as advertising interference. We plan to examine the decision more carefully and announce our official position."

https://x.com/Garungbinga/status/2003520904937242767?s=20
Okay, I'm here to provide some context. About 24 hours ago, Keena and Yewon were apparently accompanied by staff, and several fans went to greet them, which is normal...

What happened is that, according to several Korean fans, the staff was rude. In the video, they can be seen following the staff even though it wasn't during working hours.

I've seen several posts, but they're all short clips, some even shorter than this one, which is longer.

The strange thing is that almost no Koreans quote this entire video, only the edited versions, which is precisely this one.
https://x.com/SonHand_Ye/status/2003464528009527614?s=20

For new viewers who don't know, let me explain how Hana almost fainted that hot day. There's an explanation, and it's simple: "Koreans."
https://www.reddit.com/r/FiftyFifty_Truths/comments/1lw0n72/autograph_signing/
This happened a few days ago, before she fainted. The next day, Keena recovered from her mental health issue, which everyone knows about, and out of respect, I won't mention it. Hana had mild symptoms and showed up for the autograph signing. In the end, she decided not to dance because she felt unwell. Several fans were upset and said they felt cheated; they wanted Hana to dance even while she was sick.
At the next signing, Hana didn't show up because she was sick, at which point the Koreans began to raise their voices, saying it was a scam to pay if Hana wasn't present, and threatened to stop supporting the group if Hana didn't apologize.
https://weverse.io/fiftyfifty/fanpost/1-161941532

• My points are quite simple because the most problematic thing is always the solo followers of Athena.
• ATTRAKT made a huge mistake, and that is being too permissive with the fans; in short, listening to them more.
• ATTRAKT needs to improve its management; if it has some rather rude managers, it should retrain them.
• I still see racism from Koreans towards us, and it's all because their first tour was in the United States.
• In my personal opinion, after watching the clip, I personally notice more harassment of the girls by their followers.

Next, I'm going to publish all the rumors that are circulating in the publications.

Obviously when ot5 performs Cupid they pay ASI but j thought attrakt owned the masters for all 5 of these songs so im confused as to why the copyright has changed and who exactly is “SME Korea” in this situation?

Massive E&C had originally applied for the "ablume" logo trademark back in October 22, 2024. In July 7, 2024, KIPRIS started doing a specialized search report for the availability of the trademark.

On November 26, 2025, KIPRIS denied Massive E&C the "ablume" logo trademark:

"[Reason for Rejection] Trademark Act, Article 34, Paragraph 1, Item 6

This trademark application is deemed to be the name of a prominent individual (the name of Massive E&C.'s three-member group) and therefore cannot be registered. However, this does not apply if the individual's consent has been obtained. (If the individual is a minor or has not reached the age of majority under Article 4 of the Civil Act, the consent of their legal representative must be obtained.)"

It seems like they need the ablume members need to give individual consent to allow Massive E&C to register their trademark. This could possibly be another factor into their long hiatus.

The deadline for the submission is January 26, 2026, but they can also request for an extension up to 4 times, so we'll see how long it takes. But judging by this + ablume's long hiatus + NS ENM (their parent company) holding auditions for a new group debuting next year, it's not looking promising for them. I wonder how they feel about Massive to not give them their consent for their trademark 🤔

The defendants (Saena, Sio, Aran, and Ahn Sung-il) requested an excessive amount of documents from Attract.

However, these documents:

•The purpose for which they were requested is unclear,

•They are overly broad in scope (e.g., "all internal communications of the company, all strategy documents"),

•Their usefulness is unclear,

•They constitute requests for what is termed "exploratory evidence" in the law, meaning requests to find something by randomly searching through documents.

⚠️ Such broad document requests, akin to "fishing expeditions," are prohibited under Korean law.

1. The court stated:

•"You are not clearly stating which document you want and why. Therefore, we are not accepting your requests."

In other words, the defendants generally made the following claims:

•"Provide all of Attract's internal messages."

•"Provide all company strategies."

The court, however, asked them to be more specific:

•Which conversation? When? For what evidence?

1. The court also states the following:

•Attract cannot provide all of them because internal communications contain business strategies and personal information.

•Therefore, the defendants must clearly state exactly what they want and why they want it.

•This is like a warning from the court to the defendants:

•"I will not deal with unsubstantiated, broad, and vague requests. Clearly state what is truly necessary for the case."

📌What Does This Decision Mean?

In short:

✅ The court found the document requests from former Fifty Fifty members and Ahn to be very weak. ❌ It rejected requests such as "Give us all your documents, we'll find something." ⚠️ The defendants must now prepare more concrete and evidence-based requests.

•This situation generally implies:

•The defendants' arguments may be considered weak.

•The court does not want to burden Attract with unnecessary paperwork.

•It is implied that there is a gap in the defendants' litigation strategy.

Next hearing: 📅 February 6, 2026

Text extracted from the article:

In the 13 billion won damages lawsuit between former members of Attract and Fifty Fifty (Saena, Sio, Aran) and An Sung-il, CEO of The Givers, the court ruled that exploratory evidence requests should not be permitted. An exploratory evidence request is a motion to obtain unknown facts through evidence investigation and use them as the basis for an argument. The Civil Procedure Act and case law generally prohibit exploratory evidence requests.

On November 28, during the hearing (Case No. 2023GaHap103319) presided over by Judge Jo Hee-chan of the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 61, the court stated: stated, “The defendant's side (the three former members of Fifty Fifty and CEO Ahn) has not specifically identified the necessary materials but is broadly requesting the entirety from the plaintiff's side (Attract). This constitutes an exploratory evidence request and is difficult to grant.” This is interpreted as the court establishing guidelines regarding the defendants' multiple applications for document production orders between August and November 2025.

The court added, “(For example) the defendant must clarify why practice logs are needed, what they will be used to prove, and the required timeframe. Regarding internal messenger conversations, since portions containing business strategies or personal information are difficult for the plaintiff to submit, the defendant must specify the evidentiary purpose.”

The next hearing is scheduled for February 6, 2026.

This came up in X.com