BAEKHYUN WORLD

Key emojis for updates: 🗓 — Schedule ♠️ — Weverse 📸 — Instagram 🔴 — Live 🐦 — Twitter 💭 — Bubble 🌐 — Weibo 🍠 — Xiaohongshu 🎥 — Douyin/TikTok/YouTube 📃 — Article 🗳 — Voting #BAEKHYUN #백현 #ベクヒョン #边伯贤 @B_hundred_Hyun @BAEKHYUN_INB100 @_baekhyun_JP

🐶🤍 #백현 #BAEKHYUN vo.la/znQexxl

happy national puppy day .⭑🐶𐙚 ⊹ #백현 #BAEKHYUN vo.la/S9aWLUi

Happy National Puppy Day 🐶🩵

HAPPY NATIONAL PUPPY DAY 🐶❤️🐾

Separating Facts from Allegations in the SM–CBX Dispute — Q. Did Baekhyun receive a villa from Cha Ga Won or One Hundred? No. Baekhyun leased the apartment he is currently residing under a jeonse lease, a unique Korean rental system in which tenants pay a large lump‑sum deposit instead of monthly rent. He is a tenant, not an owner. — Q. Is Baekhyun responsible for paying property taxes on his current rented residence? No. Baekhyun is only a tenant and is not responsible for paying property taxes. The landlord remains responsible for property taxes and other related obligations. — Q. Did CBX receive a signing bonus from ONE HUNDRED? No — CBX DID NOT SIGN a new exclusive artist contract directly with ONE HUNDRED, which means they were NOT entitled to receive a signing bonus. There is also no verified evidence or public record that CBX received any personal signing bonus from ONE HUNDRED. The confusion comes from misunderstanding the structure and news concerning some ONE HUNDRED artists[signed under 100RED directly] CBX are signed under INB100 which became a subsidiary of ONE HUNDRED through the acquisition of company shares and not through new individual artist contracts. The reported 43 billion won was categorized as an operational advance (capital injection) to INB100. In corporate terms, that is company funding provided to a subsidiary for business operations (staff, production, tours, expansion). It is not documented as a personal signing bonus paid to Chen, Baekhyun, or Xiumin. If a massive personal bonus had been paid, it would have been a smoking gun for SM Entertainment in their current lawsuit. To date, no such evidence has been publicly presented.

Separating Facts from Allegations in the SM–CBX Dispute — Q. Were CBX poached by a third party? Did they lie about knowing them? These were allegations made by SM, including claims of a ‘double contract,’ which were later proven groundless when both sides reached an agreement in June 2023. Baekhyun never denied knowing the individual and clarified that any business advice was within a professional context, through connections formed while working under SM. — Q. Does INB100 becoming a subsidiary violate their agreement with SM? No confirmed violation has been established. If it did breach their contract, it would likely have been formally included as part of the lawsuit. — Q. How is MC Mong & Cha Ga Won related to the lawsuit? In 2023, CBX sent a notice of termination to SM, who then accused them of being poached by MC Mong based on an audio recording and alleged a double contract. MC Mong’s side clarified the recording was from a private 2022 conversation during which he expressed interest in working with two EXO members, illegally obtained, and confirmed the leaker was detained by police. At the time, MC Mong was under Million Market, an SM subsidiary. SM later apologized, and the double contract suspicion was proven groundless. In 2024, after suing CBX, SM again suggested they were influenced in relation to Cha Ga‑won, One Hundred’s chairwoman, and her share acquisition, but no charges were filed due to lack of evidence of tampering. Legally, the dispute between CBX and SM has no linkage with Cha Ga-won or MC Mong as of now. — Q. Does acquiring shares with 100RED constitute a breach of contract? No, SM requires CBX to be signed under an independent label. CBX is signed under INB100 and generates revenue as independent artists, as mentioned by their lawyer during the June 10, 2024 press conference. Although SM expressed dislike over the acquisition, they did not claim a breach.

Separating Facts from Allegations in the SM–CBX Dispute — Q. What prompted the emergency press conference? CBX’s lawyer explained that they had sent a notice to renegotiate and, for over two months, received no response. They also stated that SM was spreading rumors about them refusing to pay the 10% individual revenue‑sharing fees, which led them to address the matter publicly. — Q. Why didn’t CBX pay the 10% revenue fee even though it was written in the contract? Although the 10% clause is written into the contract, CBX argued that they signed on the understanding that the 5.5% Kakao discount offered to them would significantly offset the loss. Whether CBX must pay the full 10% or not will be decided by the court, where they will present their defense. — Q. Where did the 5.5% Kakao deal come from? It was promised by two SM executives during June 2023 negotiations. SM later admitted they proposed this without confirming with Kakao beforehand and alleged that CBX signed with another distributor, Dreamus, so they did not suffer any loss. Note that: Dreamus has been CBX’s unit distributor since 2018 and also one of the distributors for 100RED subsidiaries. Since CBX could not work with Kakao, they stayed with Dreamus instead. However, no discount from Dreamus for CBX has been recorded. — Q. Is the 10% revenue cut an industry standard? No, the 10% cut is not an industry standard. It originated from a court decision in Huang Zitao vs SM Entertainment, where SM was allowed to take 10% of his revenue until his contract ended as a buyout. CBX’s case is different: they remain signed under SM for group activities and continue generating group revenue. They argued that applying the same 10% cut to them, especially without the promised adjustment in distribution fees, is unfair. — Q. Why did CBX say they wanted to return but refused mediation? Both CBX and SM Entertainment refused mediation because the mediator’s proposal was an arbitrary amount and unrelated to their agreement. CBX maintains its intention to pay only after a court decision has been made.

Separating Facts from Allegations in the SM–CBX Dispute — Q. What were the grounds for termination? The primary reason stated by the CBX side was the company’s refusal to provide settlement data. According to the Popular Culture and Arts Industry Development Act, Article 14: Paragraph 1: All settlement data must be managed separately and must not be mixed with other records. Paragraph 2: Companies must arrange a yearly inspection of the raw settlement data for affiliated artists. Upon request, companies are also obligated to provide copies of the settlement data to the affiliated artist without delay (Amended on Oct. 22, 2024) SM did not comply with the requirement to maintain separate ledgers. Although the company allowed in-office inspection, it refused to provide copies of the settlement data to the artists. — Q. Was notice of termination a breach of contract? No, CBX’s position is that it was not a breach, but a response to SM not providing copies of settlement data despite repeated requests. SM did not take legal action at the time and instead reached a mutual agreement with CBX, resolving the issue in June 2023. — Q. Why did CBX sue SM twice? This is incorrect information. In 2023, when leaving SM, CBX did not file a lawsuit. They submitted a complaint, which was withdrawn once a settlement was reached. The first lawsuit came from SM’s side after ignoring CBX for two months. CBX described it as, ‘SM ignored us and drew the fearsome word of lawsuit,’ suggesting they had hoped to resolve matters internally without resorting to legal action. CBX actions are mostly counter measures. — Q. Did CBX leak EXO members’ settlement data to a third party? Why did EXO members have to agree to let them see it? SM only allowed CBX’s side to inspect the settlement data in the office. No copies, downloads, or receipts were allowed. SM was legally required to keep separate accounting for each EXO member, but instead pooled all income. That is why CBX needed other members’ permission to view the records, a lack of transparency that became central to their lawsuit. CBX had to sign NDAs for the inspection, so it would be impossible for them to leak it.

Separating Facts from Allegations in the SM–CBX Dispute — Q. Is the lawsuit against CBX about unpaid IP fees or illegal IP use? Reports that CBX failed to pay IP‑related fees stem from SM’s claims and remain disputed. Verified coverage indicates that SM’s lawsuit seeks to enforce a 10% contractual royalty tied to IP use and prior agreements. The matter is a contractual dispute over payment terms, not a confirmed case of illegal IP use. — Q. Did CBX just want to benefit without paying IP fees? Wrong. CBX proposed paying IP fees to SM, but SM did not respond. IP fees: payment for music and brands owned by others. (e.g. EXO brand and contents) Revenue: what CBX earns from their own individual activities (tours, albums) before deducting costs such as production, staff, and management. SM is asking for 10% of gross revenue, not profit. — Q. Then how were they able to perform older songs at concerts? Performance rights are separate from master ownership. Even if SM owns the masters, songs are registered with copyright bodies like the Korea Music Copyright Association (KOMCA). As long as the concert organizer or venue pays the required licensing fees to the appropriate organization, artists are generally allowed to perform their songs live. However, the exact scope depends on contract terms and legal outcomes. There might be restrictions regarding the broadcast of those songs on TV. — Q. Did CBX continue using SM’s copyrighted IP without paying fees? No. CBX did not continue using SM’s copyrighted IP without paying fees. After the dispute, fans observed that they rebranded from “EXO-CBX” to “CBX,” avoided SM-owned masters and back vocals, and relied on rearranged versions or live band performances. Concert organizers paid licensing fees to KOMCA, which administers performance rights separately from master ownership. Reputable reports confirm the dispute was about contracts and revenue-sharing, not unauthorized IP use.

Separating Facts from Allegations in the SM–CBX Dispute — Q. What is the CBX dispute with SM Entertainment really about? The dispute is over whether CBX must pay a 10% revenue share under their June 2023 agreement and whether SM fulfilled its contractual obligations. It is a contract enforcement and revenue-sharing disagreement and not a case of illegal IP use. — Q. Has the court ruled that CBX must pay the 10 % revenue share to SM Entertainment? No court has yet ordered CBX to pay a specific amount but a judge has allowed provisional seizure of assets to secure SM’s claim under the disputed 10 percent revenue sharing agreement. — Q. Was the dispute related to EXO group activities or their position in EXO? The legal dispute between SM Entertainment and EXO‑CBX is about enforcing contract terms and a 10% revenue‑sharing obligation for their individual or unit activities. It is not related to their participation in EXO or their position within the group. Verified reporting shows the issue concerns contractual payments and obligations, not EXO group activities. — Q. Why have the rest of EXO members and CBX stopped mentioning each other during the SM dispute? Both the rest of EXO members and CBX likely stopped mentioning each other as a legal and professional precaution. Since the lawsuit involving CBX and SM Entertainment is still ongoing, industry practice shows that artists in contract disputes often limit public statements to reduce legal risk and keep group activities separate from court matters. This professional silence does not prove broken friendships; it is about protecting everyone legally until the case is resolved.

— 9. October 2025 – CBX Excluded from EXO Activities EXO group activities are not part of the ongoing revenue-sharing lawsuit, as confirmed by SM. CBX stated all negotiations were conducted under the premise of EXO activities as a full group. • CBX and SM reportedly negotiated from July 9 to October 2, 2025, with CBX agreeing to undisclosed terms to participate in EXO activities. However, they were later excluded. • SM claimed that CBX rejected the mediation held on October 2. However, CBX later clarified that this was incorrect. On October 16, both parties rejected the mediator’s proposed 600 million KRW settlement, which they described as arbitrary and unrelated to their agreement. • Negotiations were ongoing outside of court, but no agreement was reached. • SM cited broken trust and concerns about fans and members as the reason for CBX’s exclusion, while CBX stated that they remain in direct contact with the members and have been working hard to remain together as part of the team. • CBX has stated their intention to pay the 10% fee remains unchanged, but only after a court decision. — 10. February 2026 – Temporary Freeze of CBX Assets worth 2.6B won Asset freezes in civil cases are typically provisional measures intended to secure potential claims, not a ruling on fault. This aligns with SM’s approach as part of their contract enforcement strategy. Additional Information: x.com/i/status/20219…

— 7. June 2024 - SM vs CBX Lawsuits Filed June 12: SM filed a civil lawsuit against CBX seeking enforcement of the 10% revenue-sharing clause. This marked the first formal court case in the 2024 dispute, initiated by SM—not CBX. It is widely understood as a contract enforcement action, specifically regarding the 10% provision. Contrary to some claims, the lawsuit was not related to ONE HUNDRED or based on a year of non-payment. INB100 was established in January 2024, and the lawsuit was filed in June 2024, approximately six months later. June 14: CBX Response CBX stated that after SM responded to their negotiation proposal with a lawsuit, they would counter by revealing details of the previous year’s negotiations and raising concerns about flaws in SM’s contract terms and accounting system. CBX then filed the following legal actions: • Civil lawsuit: A settlement-related claim seeking access to SM’s accounting and settlement data, best understood as a counterclaim or parallel claim within the broader dispute. • Criminal complaint: Alleging fabrication or misrepresentation related to the Kakao distribution agreement involving Lee Sung-soo (former CEO) and Tak Young-jun (current CEO). A voice recording presented as evidence to the court which claims to be legal in Korean law. However, this was later closed due to insufficient evidence to enforce a criminal charge by the police. CBX also apologized to fans for causing concern and stated they would minimize public statements moving forward. Note: These legal actions are separate from the administrative complaints filed in 2023. — 8. October 2025 – CBX Legal Outcomes CBX Legal Actions Timeline – Key Outcomes 2023 1. Complaint to Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) → Dismissed; no violation found 2. Complaint to Ministry of Culture, Sports & Tourism → Closed; no charges 2024–2025 3. Civil lawsuit (settlement data & accounting records) → Dismissed; limited data granted only after June 2023 contract period 4. Provisional measures / inspection requests → Rejected by the court 5. Appeals to higher courts → Dismissed or upheld in favor of SM 6. Criminal complaints / allegations against SM executives → Closed or not pursued Summary • At least six cases or requests filed by CBX were dismissed, rejected, or closed. • Appeals to higher courts were unsuccessful Notice / Clarifications • CBX did not “lose a lawsuit”; no single, unified case was fully examined and ruled against them. Instead, multiple separate filings were dismissed, including: • requests for data disclosure • attempts to seek regulatory intervention • specific administrative submissions These dismissals were primarily based on procedural or jurisdictional grounds. Crucially, the courts did not make any substantive findings on their claims. However, the court did not declare the contract broadly valid or lawful either. Note: The core revenue-sharing dispute is yet to be resolved by the court.

— 5. January–May 2024 – INB100 & 100RED Structure • Jan 8, 2024: Byun Baekhyun established INB100. • May 2024: INB100 became a subsidiary of ONE HUNDRED through shares acquisition. Verified reporting confirms this is a shares acquisition and parent–subsidiary relationship, not a merger. Structure & Control • INB100 remains a separate legal entity handling: - Artist management - Production and day-to-day operations • ONE HUNDRED acts as parent company, providing: - Investment: funding for albums and promotions. - Global networks, partnership and market expansion. Exact ownership percentages and profit splits are not publicly confirmed, but follow standard subsidiary models (parent receives returns proportional to its stake). Legal Position • CBX remain under INB100, not a new label • Only corporate percentage of ownership changed, not artist contracts • No verified reports of a lawsuit specifically challenging this restructuring Key Point This is a change in ownership structure, not a transfer of agency or a merger. No violation of contract has been recorded. — 6. June 2024 – Press Conference & 10% Dispute June 10, 2024 – INB100 Emergency Press Conference INB100 held an emergency press conference presenting CBX’s position on the dispute: • Alleged rumors: CBX stated that SM Entertainment had been spreading industry rumors suggesting they refused to pay the agreed 10% fee under the June 19, 2023 agreement. • Lack of response: CBX stated that SM did not respond to formal notices for over two months, which were reportedly sent late March, prior to INB100’s shares acquisition with 100RED in May. • Alternative proposal: INB100 proposed an alternative arrangement, paying SM through music assets or IP usage fees instead of a 10% revenue share. However, SM did not accept or respond. • Independent operations: CBX stated that under their agreements, they operate independently through INB100, managing and producing their own content. • 5.5% distribution issue: CBX claimed that SM had promised a 5.5% distribution fee via Kakao but failed to secure or implement it, while still demanding the full 10% revenue share. (This forms a central point of the dispute.) • 10% revenue argument: CBX argued that applying 10% to gross revenue (not profit) is unreasonable, particularly failing the promised 5.5% distribution fee which claims to be a binding condition with this agreement. • Settlement concessions: CBX stated they waived significant settlement-related benefits when signing the agreement, partly to support other artists and facilitate a resolution.

3. 2023 – Settlement Data Dispute CBX filed a complaint with the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) — not a lawsuit, which many people confuse. Main Concerns • Lack of transparency in income deductions categorized as “miscellaneous costs.” • Continued use of long contract periods, despite prior regulatory guidance. SM Entertainment’s Response • Maintained that the contracts were not exploitative. • Initially suggested CBX were influenced by a third party (MC Mong) and raised concerns about a possible “double contract,” but later apologized for this claim. • Settlement data was made available for review with the consent of other EXO members, since the joint accounting system included every member’s financial details, including CBX. CBX signed an NDA, but copies of the data were not provided, only on‑site inspection was allowed. Legal Context Under the Popular Culture and Arts Industry Development Act (Article 14), settlement statements should include clear, itemized breakdowns of individual earnings. • A May 2024 amendment further clarified that such data should be provided to artists upon request without delay. CBX’s Position CBX argued that SM uses a pooled accounting system, combining solo, unit, and group revenues, making it difficult to determine individual earnings. • Courts later did not affirm it as unlawful, only that insufficient evidence was presented to prove illegality. Status and Outcome • During the dispute, CBX had not received copies of their settlement data and were limited to on-site inspection. • Regulatory authorities later found no legal violation. • Importantly, this does not confirm that SM’s accounting is definitively correct, only that illegality was not proven under the available evidence. — 4. June 19, 2023 – Agreement Reached CBX and SM reached a revised agreement to resolve the 2023 dispute and ensure continued group activities, as the EXIST comeback was in progress. This agreement reaffirmed that their exclusive contracts remained valid, establishing new terms moving forward. • The original 5-year extension was reduced to 3 years. • CBX would continue participating in EXO group activities under SM. • Solo and sub-unit activities would be managed under their individual label, INB100. • CBX agreed to pay SM 10% of revenue (income before costs), as stipulated in a written agreement. • Reports say Kakao’s distribution rate was verbally promised and agreed to drop from 20% to 5.5%, in exchange for a 10% revenue share. - CBX claims this was a binding condition of the agreement. - SM’s position is that it was not formally guaranteed or contractually enforceable. - This issue remains unresolved and has not been definitively ruled on by a court. The dispute in 2023 was resolved within approximately two weeks. Baekhyun later stated during an Instagram Live that both sides had reached an understanding and revised the agreement, allowing activities to proceed. Following the resolution, preparations for EXO group activities resumed, including albums, fan meetings, and other promotions.

📢 [READ] CBX Contract Dispute Explained: — 1. 2011 – Original Contract • Baekhyun signed a standard 7-year exclusive contract with SM Entertainment in May 2011, along with the members of EXO. The contract period was counted from the group’s first album release. • Shortly after debut, the members reportedly signed an additional 3-year extension, mainly due to overseas promotions. - The clause automatically extends the contract until the required number of albums is released. • SM Entertainment had previously received corrective measures stating that contracts should not exceed 7 years. It was introduced by Korea FTC after earlier SM contract disputes. • Including Bekhyun’s military service hiatus (which pauses the contract), his contract was expected to end in early 2024 — roughly 13 years in total. 2. Late 2022 – 5-Year Pre-Signed Extension (2024–2029) Before his original contract expired, Byun Baekhyun signed a 5-year extension (2024–2029) with SM Entertainment while still enlisted in the military. • Reported pressure: Baekhyun’s side later stated that the renewal was signed under pressure. They claimed he was singled out and told that other members would receive certain benefits only if he signed. • “Sign now, cancel later” claim: His legal team stated he was told, “Sign now; you can cancel it later before the contract activates.” At the time, about one year remained on his original contract, and he was reportedly told changes could be made before January 2024. It was implied that refusing to sign collectively could also pose risks to the group’s stability. • Revision requests: CBX’s legal representative, Lee Jae-hak, stated that contract revisions were requested eight times, but none were accepted. • Settlement data requests: Starting in March 2023, Baekhyun, along with Chen and Xiumin, requested transparent settlement data (“provision”) under their contract and the Popular Culture and Arts Industry Development Act. • CBX stated they made multiple formal requests (commonly cited as seven), but were denied copies. • SM disputed this, stating that the data was made available for on-site inspection, but not for copying. • Termination notice: On June 1, 2023, CBX formally submitted a notice of termination for the extension contract set to begin in 2024, citing lack of settlement transparency. Presentation: canva.link/xve2k4tfj8ko9hi Full list of sources: bit.ly/CBXclarificati…

🎥 | 260323 INB100_BAEKHYUN Douyin There are two puppies here, both are so adorable'.ㅅ' Why is this video two hours long?🐶🤔 #BAEKHYUN #백현 #ベクヒョン #边伯贤 @B_hundred_Hyun @BAEKHYUN_INB100 @_baekhyun_JP

🍠 | 260323 bbh_official Wanna come with me?'.ㅅ' I’m asking the puppy🐶🐾 #BAEKHYUN #백현 #ベクヒョン #边伯贤 @B_hundred_Hyun @BAEKHYUN_INB100 @_baekhyun_JP

🍠 | 260323 bbh_official Wanna come with me?'.ㅅ' I’m asking the puppy🐶🐾 #BAEKHYUN #백현 #ベクヒョン #边伯贤 @B_hundred_Hyun @BAEKHYUN_INB100 @_baekhyun_JP