Soccer player Son Heung-min (Tottenham) virtually won the first trial of a legal dispute after breaking up with an agent with whom he had been in a relationship for the past 10 years.

According to the legal community on the 6th, the 17th division of the Civil Agreement of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Judge Kim Seong-won) filed a lawsuit filed by ICM Stella Korea (formerly Sports United, ICM) on the 1st of this month against Son & Football Limited, operated by Son Heung-min’s father, Son Woong-jung. In the lawsuit for settlement, etc., only part of the plaintiff’s claim was accepted. 토토사이트

The court ruled that Son & Football Limited paid ICM 247.67 million won in settlement of the advertising contract, but was not responsible for paying the 1.82 billion won in damages requested by ICM.

Previously, in November 2019, Son Heung-min notified ICM CEO Jang Mo of the contract termination, saying, “It seems that there is no longer a relationship of trust.” Jang has been representing Son Heung-min’s domestic activities for over 10 years since he made a relationship by helping Son Heung-min study abroad in Germany in 2008, but it is said that a conflict arose in the process of selling the company in 2019.

Mr. Jang filed a lawsuit against Son Heung-min’s exclusive management company, Son & Football Limited.

Mr. Jang claimed that there was a valid exclusive agent contract between his company, Son Heung-min, and Son & Football Limited, and demanded compensation for damages caused by unilateral termination of the contract as well as unresolved advertising payments.

On the other hand, Son Heung-min’s side refuted, saying, “I did not write a contract. I have not agreed to the contract for the sale of the corporation, and I do not have the right to get involved.”

In the truth battle over the authenticity of the contract, the court raised Son Heung-min’s hand.

Based on the handwriting analysis results, the judge said that there is a possibility that someone else copied the signatures of Son Heung-min and Son Woong-jung, and judged that “it is not enough to admit that the exclusive agent contract in this case was truly established.”

However, the court found that even if it was not an exclusive agent contract, a ‘combined contract including a mandate contract or a mandate-like contract’ was signed, in which ICM received 10% of the advertising fee as a reward in return for providing convenience to Son Heung-min at home and abroad. acknowledged that it could be regarded as

However, this also saw that the contract was legally terminated because the relationship of trust between the two sides was broken in the process of selling the company without consultation despite Jang’s objection.

The court ordered Son Heung-min to pay only the advertisement fee that had not been settled based on the time of termination of the contract, but dismissed the rest of Jang’s claims, saying, “There is no reason.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *