There, Kris's side stated, "The contract proposed by the defendant was going to last for ten years since the day of his debut. The very indefinite term of the debut itself made it so that [Kris] had no choice in this situation but to depend upon the defendant's decision making," perhaps suggesting that the ten years would start on the day SM Entertainment decided would be his debut, so it was really all up to the agency. Kris's side continued, "This long lasting contract itself is an act of anti-social legislation that limits freedom. As the contract is based on the premise of a trust relationship, the contract is a type in which both sides had to be dependent on each other," crying invalidity of the contract.
SM Entertainment's side stated, "In the entertainment management business, even if you debut in the market, the probability of success is low, so the contract becomes extended. The contract that is becoming a problem is one that was made based on the standard exclusive contract created by the Fair Trade Commission. Claiming invalidity solely based on the fact that the contract period is long is to overlook the premise."
The justice department revealed that the time period of the contract as well as the ratio of revenue were the core topics here, asking about the possibility of discussing different profits based on the members. Once again, the difference in both side's positions remained vast.
Meanwhile, SM Entertainment's plea date with Luhan was set to be on the 18th while the arbitration date with both Luhan and Kris was set for September 21.