The video production company Dolphiners Films has deposited 1.2 billion KRW (approx 830,922 USD) with the court after losing a damages lawsuit filed by ADOR, in a move aimed at halting the provisional enforcement of a 1 billion KRW (approx. 692,437 USD) compensation ruling.
According to legal sources on January 26, Dolphiners Films recently paid 1.2 billion KRW into the Seoul Central District Court. A court deposit refers to money placed with a court or deposit office by a debtor to discharge liability when a creditor refuses payment or cannot be identified during a legal dispute or debt settlement process.
Provisional enforcement is a legal mechanism that allows the winning party to enforce a judgment even before it becomes final. Under the ruling, ADOR would have been able to immediately begin provisional enforcement procedures for the awarded damages upon receipt of the judgment. The deposit is widely seen as an attempt by Dolphiners Films to block this process.
Earlier, on January 13, the Civil Division 63 of the Seoul Central District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Lee Gyu Young, partially ruled in favor of ADOR in a first-instance lawsuit seeking approximately 1.1 billion KRW in damages against Dolphiners Films and director Shin Woo Seok. The court ordered Dolphiners Films to pay ADOR 1 billion KRW, plus late payment interest calculated at an annual rate of 12 percent from December 14, 2024, until the full amount is paid.
However, Shin Woo Seok, CEO and director of Dolphiners Films, announced his intention to appeal, calling the ruling “contrary to common sense.”
Shin argued that the court had previously found that, contrary to ADOR’s claims, the upload of NewJeans’ “ETA Director’s Cut” video to a YouTube channel was carried out based on a verbal agreement between the parties and therefore could not be considered an unauthorized posting. He added that the court acknowledged testimony and evidence supporting the existence of such a verbal agreement as credible and leaving no room for doubt as to its intent.
“Despite this,” Shin said, “the court determined that because the contract required written consent, we are still obligated to pay a contractual penalty for breach, even though a verbal agreement existed.” He further claimed that the court clearly ruled that copyright infringement was not established and that the posting of Dolphiners Films’ public statement was lawful, dismissing all other damages claims filed by ADOR.
Shin went on to stress that recognizing a clear agreement between the parties while simultaneously finding a breach solely because the agreement was not put in writing is, in itself, contradictory. “It runs counter to the original intent of both parties, who had agreed to replace written consent with a verbal agreement,” he said.
Concluding his remarks, Shin stated, “We believe the first-instance ruling goes against both the will of the parties involved and basic common sense, and for that reason, we filed an appeal on the 20th.”
SEE ALSO: Dolphiner’s Film appeals ruling in NewJeans music video copyright dispute
SHARE
