These are direct quotes from Lee Jung:

1. If it's JYJ's fault, the court wouldn't have sided with JYJ. 2. It's JYJ who took legal action against SM, and it's SM who breached the contract (didn't pay DBSK the right amount of money according to the contract). 3. DBSK were forced to do compulsory labour, which is defined as "slavery"according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that was already ratified by Korea. 4. And just saying, but DBSK help SM too. It's a two way relationship. You're saying as if SM did everything while DBSK only need to sit there, doing nothing & enjoy the popularity. DBSK brought back to SM 100x of what SM had spent on DBSK. 5. Below is 3 main arguments from JYJ:

Excessive length of the contract: 13 years, or 15 year if army duty included Excessive amount of compensation in the breaching contract clause. Unfair income division clause & SM used shady accounting practices to cheat on DBSK's payment (in 2008 DBSK made it big in Japan, but their payment from Japanese activities was a deficit)

6. The Court has already decided that Crebeau is NOT the reason for the JYJ vs. SM lawsuit:http://www.allkpop.com/2011/02/courts-rule-that-crebeau-was-not-responsible-forjyjsm-dispute 7. JYJ's attendance in CreBeau investment meeting was agreed by SM, that's why SM's managers went with JYJ to that meeting. And since when your employer can decide on what you should invest YOUR money in and what you should not? If SM really forbade JYJ to invest in Crebeau then it's so obvious that SM violated JYJ's freedom. 8. There are many reasons, aside from the excessive length of contract, that made the Court decide to void the contract. Those reasons include: excessive compensation amount in the breaching contract clause, the extreme unbalanced state of bargaining power between 2 parties when the contract was created, signed & amended, etc. 9. The unfair payment part has NOT been dismissed. In fact, the unfair payments argument has been in a long discussion & debate and it's why this case has been dragged on for so long (to determine whether the payment is just or not, the Court needs documents (evidences) and witnesses, but SM keeps delaying submitting the required documents & witnesses). 10. The Court granted JYJ a preliminary injunction that allows JYJ to freely do their activities in the K-biz and forbids SM to interfere in JYJ's activities. The Court also explained what's wrong with the contract. You can read the Court order in English here:http://tohosomnia.livejournal.com/87182.html#cutid1 SM then filed an objection to the Court's injunctive judgment as well as a preliminary injunction to void JYJ's contract with C-JeS (SM's reason: the contract is invalid because JYJ are still in an

exclusive contract with SM). Both of these cases were fully dismissed by the Court. The Court also once again re-affirm that the DBSK contract is unfair and invalid and ordered SM to pay fine for every time interfering in JYJ's activities. You can read the translation for the Court's order here: - The Court dismissed SM's objection against the injunctive judgment: http://jyj3.net/2011/02/19/full-trans-seoul-district-court-decision-to-dismiss-all-of-sms-claims/ - The Court dismissed SM's preliminary injunction to void JYJ's contract with C-JeS: http://thejyjfiles.wordpress.com/20...n-of-sms-claim-of-so-called-dual-contracting/ Obviously the Court is on JYJ's side. And it's easy to understand, because the DBSK contract is clearly unfair & illegal. It's not an overstatement when people & the media dubbed the contract as "a slave contract". JYJ got a really strong case in their hands and I do not doubt their victory. The only thing that has been dragging this case on is how much SM should compensate JYJ (JYJ only demanded a part of the money that SM "stole" from JYJ's pocket by using the shady accounting practices - which means JYJ only wants the money which is rightfully theirs according to the income division clauses in the original contract). The reason is because SM keeps delaying submitting documents & the witness (the head of financial/accounting department in SM) was either absent or danced around the questions - so it's hard for the Court to determine the amount of compensation. You've got to read the scripts of the hearing, where SM said that in 2008 DBSK only made $880K USD from the Japan market while BoA, CSJH, The TRAX & Go Ara made a combination of $11.5 million USD <-- the funniest shit I've ever heard lol~ (the people inside the court room actually burst out laughing too when hearing that). It's like SM thought that JYJ's lawyer and fans were dumb or something. Just a little research & everyone would know that in 2008 DBSK made the most money among SM artists in the Japanese market - even BoA can't compare, let alone CSJH & Trax which flopped in Japan, and Go Ara didn't even got activity in Japan. So I can't understand why some people are still trying to justify the DBSK contract, while the friggin' KOREAN COURT has already said that the contract is unfair. 11. Precious (truetvxq's owner) has his opinion and theory but he tries to press it as THE TRUTH while he's a Korean-American who lives in the US. He selected information & documents and tried to interpret & bend them to suit his opinion & theory, while intendedly ignored other legit documents like the Court's decisions. 12. - One of the reason for the lawsuit is money: I can't understand why people frown upon this reason. Let's be rational. Idols are HUMAN, they are not angels, or Jesus, or mother Teresa. They work for their dream, but also for money, like everyone of us. Why normal people can jump to other job FOR BETTER PAY, but idols can't??? Why business, like SMent, can seek for profits maximization - and everyone accept that, but when idols want to seek for profit maximization too, then people call them "greedy"??? Let me ask you, if you have a job, where you work your ass off but the pay, in your opinion, doesn't equate the efforts you put out, won't you want to look for better job & better contract? I'm sure you would. So why can you be "greedy", while idols aren't allowed to? Plus, the biggest money problem is not about the profit division clause in the contract, but about

the shady accounting practicesof SM. The payment calculation process is NOT transparent. DBSK didn't and couldn't know whether they money the received was right according to the contract clauses. 2008 was the year they hit it big in Japan, achieving Gold certifications for their album & singles sales plus they got one big sold out Arena tour in Japan, but the payment from their Japanese activities was a deficit! They tried to ask for the balance sheet, explanation and all, but SM never gave them that. Moreover, during the hearing of the lawsuit, it turned out that SM couldn't, or to be more exact, didn't dare to provide balance sheets & documents about what they have paid DBSK all these years. Many costs that should be paid by SM (as agreed upon in the contract) were actually subtracted to DBSK's payment - i.e. DBSK was the one who paid those costs. And SM hadn't even paid DBSK the money for Mirotic physical & digital sales *shakehead*. So if anything, it's not JYJ who broke the contract, it's SM who broke the contract first! That is, I haven't talked about how SM created SM Japan to split the money so that the payment to DBSK was lessened... - Another reason for the lawsuit is the mistreatment that DBSK received: money is one reason, but it's not the biggest, nor it's the only one. If you're a long time fan of DBSK, you'd know that DBSK got very little rest. 3-4 hour sleeping per day is generous. Sometimes they looked like they'd faint right there. They hardly ever got time off even when they're sick (when Yunho got poisoned, he was only given a few days to rest & then had to get right back to work). Sometimes they even had to work 3 daysstraight without sleeping at all. Their schedule was always known as "hell schedule". The longest vacation they were given in 1 year was 10 days. SM idols nowadays are treated way better in this aspect compared to DBSK back then. Oh, and that's not all, it's known among Cassies already about how SM managers/staffs would mistreat (yelling, hitting, hurting) DBSK. Proofs: the scene where SM managers mistreated DBSK was caught on Chinese media camera once; there was also a backstage video in Japan where Changmin was talking in front of the camera, but about 20-30 meters behind him, SM stylist kept hurting Yunho while fixing his hair, even though Yunho already repeatedly told him/her that he's hurt and Junsu - who stood next to Yunho - even had to say "Stop it! He said he's hurt!!!"... - The lawsuit happened because of the DBSK contract itself: if you have studied a basic laws course and have read DBSK's contract, then you'd find a lot of problems there. I can't understand why some people can out right say that there is nothing wrong with the contract except for the contract length. As if they can work under such contract

The contract length: 13 years, not including 2 years of army duty. So if DBSK stayed with the contract, they'd have had to work their asses off for SM until they're 31-33 years old. Basically a life time contract because we all know that an idol's life is finished generally when they reach 30 years old. DBSK had little, or none at all, bargain power: when they first signed the contract, they're idol hopefuls or have just stepped into the idol life. They had little knowledge and weak bargaining power, thus they couldn't negotiate for good contract clauses and had to accept the contract if they wanted to debut. Even after reaching the popular star status, their bargaining power was still weak because they're bounded to the unfair contract thus having no position to negotiate for contract adjustment. If a contract is created in a

situation of extreme unbalanced bargaining power, the contract is subjected to question of validity. Income division clauses: I'll not comment on whether such income division is just or not, because I'm not music industry expert. But there are 2 things I found trouble in. First, like I've mentioned above, SM created SM Japan to lessen the money that DBSK deserved to receive. And second, the copyright (& thus the copyright fees) of the Korean songs that DBSK wrote and/or composed automatically belonged to SM. DBSK's moral rights (i.e rights of the author - like the right to say yes or no if people want to edit the composed/written songs, it's different from copyright because moral rights should always stay with the author while copyright can be transferred) of their self composed/written Korean songs were also ripped by SM according to the contract, as SM could edit the songs however SM liked without DBSK's consent. So DBSK's rights are ripped from them by the contract --> how can the contract be "ok"? DBSK had no veto power: Originally, DBSK had no veto power (i.e. cannot say no to anything SM made them to do). After an adjustment, DBSK could have veto power on things that are not of their duty. Their schedule and everything related to it, however, are of DBSK's duty, so again, DBSK had almost no veto power. They were forced to go with the schedule even it's against their will or their health could not handle it - or else they'll have to pay compensation. This is forced & compulsory labour, which can be defined as "slavery" under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - the Covenant that Korea has ratified. Other "missing" clauses: no vacation clause, no sick leave, no medical insurance, etc... Tell me if you'd agree to work under such conditions lol~ Extreme unbalance of rights & obligation of 2 parties: DBSK had too little rights and too many obligations, while SM got too many rights and too little obligations. Just count the mere number of rights & obligations each party has in the contract, you'd know what I'm talking about. A contract in such extreme unbalanced state is also subjected to question of validity. The breaching contract clause: If DBSK wants to eliminate the contract early, then they'd have to pay the compensation"that is worth three times the amount of investment (any money used for the purpose of DBSK) and twice the predicted profits that would be gained in the years had the contract not be terminated" . It is estimated that if DBSK wanted to eliminate the contract after 5.5 years working, then they'd have had to pay around $400 million USD - while after 5.5 years of working, SM only paid the 5 members of DBSK the total amount of 11 Billion Won (= $9.6 Million USD). So basically, it's impossible for DBSK to get out of the unfair contract early. Look at the contract you have with your internet provider or even employment contract with your employer, you'd see that there would be a compensation clause if you eliminate the contract early. You'd have to pay an amount of money, but it's NOT impossible at all for you to get out of that contract. That's what compensation clause is for: allowing the 2 parties to change their minds even if contract was already signed and compensating the party at loss. However, using this clause to make it impossible for 1 party to get out of the contract is going against the original purpose of the clause. It's actually illegal for SM to abuse the compensation clause like that to "imprison" DBSK with the contract. Plus, only DBSK had to pay compensation if they breach contract clause or eliminate the contract early. There is, however, no such obligation for SM! That means, SM can breach the

contract clauses however it wants to. SM can also dump DBSK whenever it wants to without having to pay a dime! --------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, I guess that sums it up Oh, and if you ever encounter TrueTVXQ and suddenly feel inclined to support HoMin only, then just read this.

These are Lee Jung's words from the old 6theory:

I've visited that blog before. And tbh, that blogger is more of a SM bias person, than a neutral one. He claimed that he will reveal the "truth" about the law suit, but all I've seen from his blog entries are information AND his opinion to prove that SM's contract is not that unfair. How can he call it "the truth"??? - He claims that 13 years is not that long well, I'd say, go ahead & bind yourself in a 13-year-contract & we'll see. The fact that artists have to bind themselves in a long time contract means that they'll have no means to negotiate with the company within the contract period and always are at the weaker position. This is the reason why the previous management system in the US (which is similar to the system in Korea at the moment) broke down & disappeared. Also, why did he talk about "job security" here??? It's the entertainment world, man. And the 13 years contract does NOT secure the job for DBSK, because clearly the contract allows SM to dump DBSK however & whenever it wants to without having to pay ANYTHING. Plus, one must be on crack to say that 13 years is not that long for an idol. A career of an idol generally ends when the idol reaches 30 years old. The contract binds DBSK until the boys are 32-34 years old, which practically means it's a life time contract. - He claimed that the contract is not unfair, except from the breach of contract clause Man, I wonder if he will really be fine if his employment contract is similar to DBSK's. There is obviously a problem when the contract says nothing about vacation, sick leave, rewards on excess of work hours, etc... Also, the blogger (smartly) skipped article 3.2 & article 6 in the contract, which states that DBSK must complete all the schedule & work that SM decided without veto power (article 3.10 gives artists veto power, but on stuffs that are "not the artists' duty". Completing schedule is, however, the artists' duty, therefore veto power in 3.10 is not applied). If it's not unfair, then I don't know what is. Especially, article 3.2 might be defined as "forced or compulsory labour", which is categorized under "slavery" according to the law. - He claimed that SM has the rights to DBSK's work, but SM also paid DBSK fairly. ^ which I laughed at. The blogger talked about how DBSK got highly paid for their self composed/written Japanese songs, but skipped out the part that DBSK doesn't get paid for their self composed/written Korean songs.

He mentioned that DBSK will get their profit distribution from albums & recorded songs even after the contract expired, and that "more the company uses the product with the rights given by above clauses, the richer TVXQ gets", while yet again, left out the fact that DBSK only gets paid for DBSK's normal albums, & doesn't get anything from edited goods (best album, remixed album, omnibus album, etc...) --> then how the hell can "more the company uses the product with the rights given by above clauses, the richer TVXQ gets"??? Even if SM use DBSK's self composed/written songs for other artists' album, then DBSK still doesn't get paid for it. And no matter whether the contract expires or not, SM can still go ahead & releases edited goods which include DBSK's recorded songs & just bank from it, without having to pay DBSK anything. - He claimed that the distribution clauses is fair This is the one that makes I raised my eyebrows. He claimed that the album sales division is fair, if compared to the general American distribution calculation. However, why didn't he take in consideration of the difference between American & Korean entertainment system, market size & labour cost? Even the royalties payment for song writers is not similar between America & Korea. The US even has law on royalties payment matter, while Korea (from what I know) has none. Also, the blogger gave out false information that "the portions of the contract that was amended in Feb 2009 include better percentages for the albums sales, and SM applied the new figures for the Mirotic album, which was released in the previous year even though they didn't have to", while in fact, the album sales division clause was amended in July 2008 & Mirotic was released in September 2008 --> obviously SM HAS TO divide the income according to the new clause. The blogger's false information makes SM look oh-so-generous lol~. Then he talked about the income division from Japanese activities, which he believes that DBSK was paid so high for: 70% of the profit! Yet again, he cleverly left out the fact that: the profit is divided among Avex, SM Japan & SM Korea. The one pays DBSK is SM Japan, and that supposedly "70% of profit" is actually 70% of what SM Japan receives. (That is, not to mention, the income calculation process is NOT transparent, which means DBSK doesn't know whether they got the right amount of money according to the contract) - He claimed that the excessive breach of contract clause is in accordance with the FTC's old standard contract ^ which I doubt the credibility, since he got the information from a blog. Also the sentence in the blog that he took information from, is unclear about whether he/she was talking about how it's better than SM's old clause OR better than the FTC's old clause? And if SM's breach of contract clause is really what FTC suggests, then why SM didn't use it to argue against JYJ in Court? - He claimed that JYJ will win just because of the excessive breach of contract clause (which is the only clause that he thinks unfair) ^ while actually JYJ's temporary victory in Nov 2009 was also based on the 13-year term as the

Court also found it unfair. You can find the Court's ruling in English here: http://community.liv...182.html#cutid1 . JYJ's case is now investigating in the income division clauses, and hopefully the Court will give a fair answer about that in March this year (I'm really pissed off because SM succeeded in delaying the verdict, AGAIN).

Imo, that blog truetvxq is just simply an opinion based (& biased) blog that I'll just take it as a grain of salt. It doesn't offer anything new to what I've known & what the media has reported. I don't know what the blogger is trying to do: trying to find a reason to justify why HoMin didn't sue SM, or simply trying to justify the SM's contract? HoMin didn't sue simply because their opinion is different than JYJ. It doesn't mean the contract is not unfair. What in blog truetvxq is just 1 perspective of looking at the lawsuit, it doesn't offer "the truth" like what the blogger has claimed.

Controversial question:
"If the contract were really unfair, then why didn't the other 2 file a lawsuit as well?" Lee Jung's words: About JYJ vs HoMin - who betrayed who, I don't think anyone betrayed anyone. It's just the matter of differences in each person's values & perspectives. Both JYJ & HoMin decided their paths based on their own values & perspectives.

My own opinion: Think. Imagine as if they've never separated. Now let me ask you, if you were to divide the group into the rational and less rational ones, how will you divide them? I'm pretty sure the answer will be JaeChunSu and HoMin. HoMin knows that they will face a lot of difficulties if they were to sue one of the biggest talent powerhouses in S. Korea. Hence, being the safe ones, it only makes sense that out of the 5, those two will stay.