KEN

Name a perfect album from start to finish 🤔

And honestly, why are you this invested in interfering? If you want to share personal opinions, do it on your own account. This isn’t your lane, and you’re overstepping. It’s best to step back. Especially when it’s not even your idol. This argument sounds detailed, but it’s built on a fundamental misunderstanding. You’re treating procedural dismissals as if they were substantive rulings which they are not. Those filings were rejected not because the court proved CBX’s claims wrong, but because they failed to meet procedural thresholds (scope, specificity, evidentiary sufficiency). That reflects a limitation in the filings, not a final determination of the underlying issues. So saying everything is “settled and done” is inaccurate. What ended were specific applications not the broader disputes, which were never fully examined on the merits. And while the current lawsuit focuses on the 10% obligation, it doesn’t erase the context in which that obligation was formed. Those surrounding issues can still be legally relevant, particularly when assessing enforceability. So no this is not a simple “they failed, case closed” situation. It’s a case where procedural barriers prevented earlier claims from being fully heard, and the core dispute is now being tested through a different legal pathway.

Since they are only arguing in the QRTs about this one thing that they think is relevant to existing lawsuit between SM vs CBX, let me use this material you all putting in front of our faces. Under your Notice/Clarifications: "CBX did not lose a LAWSUIT" • You're approaching this with word technicality. Yes, they did not lose a LAWSUIT because the appeal and re-appeals were dismissed by the police, regional court and supreme court BEFORE EVEN TURNING IT TO A LAWSUIT. All appeals and re-appeals were dismissed by the respective governing authorities with valid reasons (as stated on my post below). "Crucially, the court did not make any SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS on their claims" • SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS are evidence-based results (will be based on documents that INB100 requested). However, their mere request of documents were validly dismissed by all courts because INB100 cannot specify the EXISTENCE and the SCOPE of allegedly unpaid settlements. The very reason why all appeals and re-appeals were dismissed through procedural grounds in the first place. Meaning substantive findings are not crucial or even needed to dismiss their case or appeal. "The revenue-sharing dispute is yet to be resolved by the court." • This statement can be misleading for many • The case about unpaid settlements to CBX were all dismissed and INB100 did not proceed any further. There is no existing appeal or lawsuit from INB100 now about unpaid settlements of CBX from SM. Hence, this case was all settled and done years ago. SO WHAT IS THE CURRENT CONTRACT DISPUTE BETWEEN SM VS CBX? • The contract dispute of the EXISTING LAWSUIT is about CBX's non-performance of their revised contract specifically about the non-payment of 10% share of SM to their individual activities' revenue. This is stated on the revised contract that CBX signed. • This one was filed by SM and turned into lawsuit. This will most probably require inspection of INB100's financial records. (Important to note that it is INB100's financial record not SM) Why? To determine the basis of amount that INB100 needs to be paid to SM. Whether 10% of REVENUE, GROSS PROFIT or NET PROFIT or any measures that the COURT considered deemed valid and reasonable. THIS IS THE REVENUE-SHARING DISPUTE THAT IS YET TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT. REVENUE SHARE OF SM TO CBX'S INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES UNDER INB100. NOT THE REVENUE-SHARING BETWEEN EXO MEMBERS. Hence, your "pooled revenue" allegations are unrelated and irrelevant to the current and existing lawsuit of SM vs CBX. THE END.

Hello, There appears to be a misunderstanding. We were not aware of your post prior to this, and our response was not directed at it. After noticing the discourse in the quote section, we issued a clarification to address how certain events in the timeline were being taken out of context and misinterpreted. In order to ensure accuracy, we referred directly to the press conference and consulted reliable translators. Our clarification was intended to address the broader spread of misinformation, not any specific post or individual. Additionally, we outlined the procedural cases mentioned, in our post, and did not omit any. We also stated that no substantive judgment has been made on the case to date. Our goal was simply to present the sequence of events as accurately as possible. While we understand concerns around how information circulates, we do not have control over how others may interpret or further disseminate statements. We identified a need to provide context and acted accordingly. We would appreciate not being held responsible for interpretations or narratives beyond our control. Thank you for your understanding.

And honestly, why are you this invested in interfering? If you want to share personal opinions, do it on your own account. This isn’t your lane, and you’re overstepping. It’s best to step back. Especially when it’s not even your idol. This argument sounds detailed, but it’s built on a fundamental misunderstanding. You’re treating procedural dismissals as if they were substantive rulings which they are not. Those filings were rejected not because the court proved CBX’s claims wrong, but because they failed to meet procedural thresholds (scope, specificity, evidentiary sufficiency). That reflects a limitation in the filings, not a final determination of the underlying issues. So saying everything is “settled and done” is inaccurate. What ended were specific applications not the broader disputes, which were never fully examined on the merits. And while the current lawsuit focuses on the 10% obligation, it doesn’t erase the context in which that obligation was formed. Those surrounding issues can still be legally relevant, particularly when assessing enforceability. So no this is not a simple “they failed, case closed” situation. It’s a case where procedural barriers prevented earlier claims from being fully heard, and the core dispute is now being tested through a different legal pathway.

Kyungsoo isn't in SM or CBX, so why are his fanbases acting like unpaid lawyers in a case that has nothing to do with him? 💀

Hello, There appears to be a misunderstanding. We were not aware of your post prior to this, and our response was not directed at it. After noticing the discourse in the quote section, we issued a clarification to address how certain events in the timeline were being taken out of context and misinterpreted. In order to ensure accuracy, we referred directly to the press conference and consulted reliable translators. Our clarification was intended to address the broader spread of misinformation, not any specific post or individual. Additionally, we outlined the procedural cases mentioned, in our post, and did not omit any. We also stated that no substantive judgment has been made on the case to date. Our goal was simply to present the sequence of events as accurately as possible. While we understand concerns around how information circulates, we do not have control over how others may interpret or further disseminate statements. We identified a need to provide context and acted accordingly. We would appreciate not being held responsible for interpretations or narratives beyond our control. Thank you for your understanding.

Since they are only arguing in the QRTs about this one thing that they think is relevant to existing lawsuit between SM vs CBX, let me use this material you all putting in front of our faces. Under your Notice/Clarifications: "CBX did not lose a LAWSUIT" • You're approaching this with word technicality. Yes, they did not lose a LAWSUIT because the appeal and re-appeals were dismissed by the police, regional court and supreme court BEFORE EVEN TURNING IT TO A LAWSUIT. All appeals and re-appeals were dismissed by the respective governing authorities with valid reasons (as stated on my post below). "Crucially, the court did not make any SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS on their claims" • SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS are evidence-based results (will be based on documents that INB100 requested). However, their mere request of documents were validly dismissed by all courts because INB100 cannot specify the EXISTENCE and the SCOPE of allegedly unpaid settlements. The very reason why all appeals and re-appeals were dismissed through procedural grounds in the first place. Meaning substantive findings are not crucial or even needed to dismiss their case or appeal. "The revenue-sharing dispute is yet to be resolved by the court." • This statement can be misleading for many • The case about unpaid settlements to CBX were all dismissed and INB100 did not proceed any further. There is no existing appeal or lawsuit from INB100 now about unpaid settlements of CBX from SM. Hence, this case was all settled and done years ago. SO WHAT IS THE CURRENT CONTRACT DISPUTE BETWEEN SM VS CBX? • The contract dispute of the EXISTING LAWSUIT is about CBX's non-performance of their revised contract specifically about the non-payment of 10% share of SM to their individual activities' revenue. This is stated on the revised contract that CBX signed. • This one was filed by SM and turned into lawsuit. This will most probably require inspection of INB100's financial records. (Important to note that it is INB100's financial record not SM) Why? To determine the basis of amount that INB100 needs to be paid to SM. Whether 10% of REVENUE, GROSS PROFIT or NET PROFIT or any measures that the COURT considered deemed valid and reasonable. THIS IS THE REVENUE-SHARING DISPUTE THAT IS YET TO BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT. REVENUE SHARE OF SM TO CBX'S INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES UNDER INB100. NOT THE REVENUE-SHARING BETWEEN EXO MEMBERS. Hence, your "pooled revenue" allegations are unrelated and irrelevant to the current and existing lawsuit of SM vs CBX. THE END.

Your post was the source of misinformation and misinterpretation of the fans about this "pooled accounting" system (which was never proven even true). This has caused the fans to assume that all members shared profits from their solo activities. They made false narratives out of it and throw hateful posts to other EXO members. You can literally read the quote retweets of your post and you'll see my point. That is the main reason I posted that article about EXO members themselves stating otherwise. That was a response to those false narratives and hateful posts. As for this clarification post of yours, it is also important to also disclose the facts about this case and not just one-sided statement from INB10O. “Thinking that this would clearly become a legal issue, I requested settlement data from my clients. In particular, Article 14 of the Popular Culture and Arts Industry Development Act mandates that accounting books regarding popular culture planning and compensation must be maintained separately. I even had doubts as to whether SM was conducting proper accounting. Even from this statement from INB100, it is clear that it was their personal suspicion and doubts that led them to think that there was no "proper accounting" conducted. "SUSPICION" and "DOUBT" not FACT. Then this suspicion was brought to PROPER GOVERNING AUTHORITIES (namely Seoul Court, Supreme Court and The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) by INB100. As for the document submission order of CBX settlement data for the past 13 years, both Seoul Court and Supreme Court dismissed the case. Seoul Court: The court rejected most of their requests, saying, "The application for the document submission order in this case is sought and comprehensive by specifying the settlement data through document submission order, etc. without specifying the existence and scope of the unpaid settlement money." INB100 appealed to Supreme Court... RESULT: Supreme Court decided to dismiss the trial. As for the request asking to view and register documents such as accounting books related to settlement: Seoul Court: This case application is being maintained to use this case application as a convenient way to achieve the purpose of document submission or to psychologically pressure SM." INB100 appealed to Supreme Court RESULT: Supreme Court decided to dismiss the trial. As for the case of violation of Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the Popular Culture and Art Industry Development Act (obligation to disclose the accounting book). Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism: No violation by stating that "through face-to-face investigation and submitted evidence, it was confirmed that SM periodically disclosed data related to settlement to artists in accordance with exclusive contracts and the Popular Culture Industry Act". These are all actual court dismissals and facts that are important to know by the fans so they can have their objective take about this matter. I deliberately did not include statement from SM side so you can save all your "company stan" allegation to yourself. I rest my case.

Your post was the source of misinformation and misinterpretation of the fans about this "pooled accounting" system (which was never proven even true). This has caused the fans to assume that all members shared profits from their solo activities. They made false narratives out of it and throw hateful posts to other EXO members. You can literally read the quote retweets of your post and you'll see my point. That is the main reason I posted that article about EXO members themselves stating otherwise. That was a response to those false narratives and hateful posts. As for this clarification post of yours, it is also important to also disclose the facts about this case and not just one-sided statement from INB10O. “Thinking that this would clearly become a legal issue, I requested settlement data from my clients. In particular, Article 14 of the Popular Culture and Arts Industry Development Act mandates that accounting books regarding popular culture planning and compensation must be maintained separately. I even had doubts as to whether SM was conducting proper accounting. Even from this statement from INB100, it is clear that it was their personal suspicion and doubts that led them to think that there was no "proper accounting" conducted. "SUSPICION" and "DOUBT" not FACT. Then this suspicion was brought to PROPER GOVERNING AUTHORITIES (namely Seoul Court, Supreme Court and The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism) by INB100. As for the document submission order of CBX settlement data for the past 13 years, both Seoul Court and Supreme Court dismissed the case. Seoul Court: The court rejected most of their requests, saying, "The application for the document submission order in this case is sought and comprehensive by specifying the settlement data through document submission order, etc. without specifying the existence and scope of the unpaid settlement money." INB100 appealed to Supreme Court... RESULT: Supreme Court decided to dismiss the trial. As for the request asking to view and register documents such as accounting books related to settlement: Seoul Court: This case application is being maintained to use this case application as a convenient way to achieve the purpose of document submission or to psychologically pressure SM." INB100 appealed to Supreme Court RESULT: Supreme Court decided to dismiss the trial. As for the case of violation of Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the Popular Culture and Art Industry Development Act (obligation to disclose the accounting book). Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism: No violation by stating that "through face-to-face investigation and submitted evidence, it was confirmed that SM periodically disclosed data related to settlement to artists in accordance with exclusive contracts and the Popular Culture Industry Act". These are all actual court dismissals and facts that are important to know by the fans so they can have their objective take about this matter. I deliberately did not include statement from SM side so you can save all your "company stan" allegation to yourself. I rest my case.

“Closer family” using a mistranlated SS from twelvezero? Meanwhile there’s sehun with a SOLID PROOF associated with grapist and shady people lol 100 hundred is not INB100 maybe fix your eyes and reading comprehension retard. SEHUN SOLO ALBUM WHEN 🤣🤣🤣