K-Buzz

Nine of the 11 members of The Boyz notified their agency, Won Hundred, on February 10, 2026, that they were terminating their exclusive contracts.
They say unpaid settlements (payments for past activities) and repeated failures in management duties destroyed the trust between artists and company.
The agency rejects the terminations, arguing that the contractual assumptions have collapsed and that the company faces severe financial strain.
The dispute has the potential to spread into tour dates, harm to fans, and formal litigation.

"A Crack in Trust" or "Respect for the Contract" — Key Stakes in The Boyz Dispute

Case summary

Trust has broken down.

After an 11-member exclusive contract signed in 2024, reports of unpaid settlements and unmet support began to pile up in mid-2025. On February 10, 2026, nine members informed Won Hundred they would terminate their contracts.

Since the 2024 deal with Won Hundred, the group faced several structural changes.
One member, Joo Haknyeon, left in 2025 amid a personal controversy, which reduced the lineup and increased managerial and financial pressure on the agency.
The nine members claim that payments due after July 2025 were not made.
They also say repeated requests to review contract terms were denied, and that basic support—like vehicles and rehearsal space—was inadequate.

The agency presents a different timeline.
Won Hundred says it paid a large signing fee on the assumption of an 11-member lineup, and that departures and controversies undermined that premise.
The company claims it tried to sustain the group despite losses and that it absorbed financial pain to keep activities going.
As a result, both sides now argue in terms of trust and contractual obligations, with potential ripple effects for fans and business partners.

Support for the members' termination

The members have a clear set of demands.

They say unpaid settlements, repeated refusals to allow contract review, and failures to provide promised support amount to material breaches of the exclusive contract.

Importantly, this is not merely an emotional reaction.
Failure to pay settlements after July 2025, if proven, represents concrete financial harm to the artists and their livelihoods.
Meanwhile, repeated denial of requests to see contract documents undermines transparency (clear accounting and records that artists can verify).
Without that transparency, artists cannot confirm whether payments or expenses were handled correctly.

Lawyers for the members emphasize that reviewing contracts and settlement records is a legitimate right.
Exclusive management contracts (agreements that give an agency control over an artist's activities) often create an imbalance of power, so transparency on payments and bookkeeping is a basic protection for performers.
Moreover, failure to provide necessary resources—like transportation and rehearsal space—can be a practical breach that interferes with the members' ability to work.

From a practical standpoint, the members' decision has rational grounds.
If the agency cannot or will not present clear accounting and a credible plan, the artists must protect their careers and finances.
The agency's claim that it absorbed losses does not automatically negate artists' rights. On the contrary, financial difficulty is not a blanket excuse for not meeting contractual duties.

Socially, the case also spotlights industry norms.
Talent management is capital intensive and often depends on long-term investment and outside funding.
However, transparency and timely settlements are basic ethical duties; habitual failure here can erode trust across the whole industry.
The members' move reads not only as a personal defense but also as a call for better standards in artist management.

Agency's case for enforcing the contract

The company pushes back.

Won Hundred says it paid a large signing bonus based on an 11-member contract and that member departures and controversies shattered that premise.

The agency frames its argument in business terms.
Promoters and managers plan around specific rosters, budgets, and partner commitments. Investments are made with those assumptions.
An unexpected departure—such as Joo Haknyeon’s exit—can be an unforeseeable risk the company absorbed while trying to keep the group operational.
From the agency's view, unilateral terminations can undermine the predictability that contracts are meant to preserve.

Legally, the agency leans on contract validity and continuity.
A contract negotiated on the basis of an 11-member lineup and a large signing payment is part of the deal's foundation. The agency argues that sudden, collective withdrawal could constitute a breach by the artists.
The company also raises concerns about third-party harm—venues, investors, staff—if scheduled concerts and obligations are canceled.

From a financial angle, Won Hundred says it has been running at a loss to keep the group together.
Entertainment investments often pay back over years, so short-term deficits may occur. Still, the company insists that financial strain alone does not justify contract termination.
Instead, it urges legal procedures—mediation or court—to examine facts before accepting any contract break.

The agency further argues that the members' claims may reflect only part of the story.
Accounting disputes and contract interpretation are technical issues that courts and auditors should resolve.
Therefore, the company favors arbitration or judicial review rather than immediate termination.

Legal outlook and industry implications

Process matters most.

In any upcoming litigation or mediation, the key questions will be whether settlement records exist and whether the agency materially failed to meet contractual obligations.

Courts usually focus on the contract text, the parties' practices, and whether performance actually occurred.
If the members bring convincing evidence of unpaid settlements and unmet obligations, a judge could deem termination justified.
Conversely, if the company shows it attempted to perform and that departures were unforeseeable, the court may view the terminations as wrongful. Hence, audits, witness testimony, and documentary records will be decisive.

From an industry standpoint, the dispute renews debate about standard contracts and artist protections.
Agencies have responsibilities to explain financial management; artists have rights to timely payment and to inspect records that affect their earnings.
This case could accelerate talks about contract standardization, clearer accounting practices, and stronger safeguards for artists. Meanwhile, restoring fan confidence will be a separate long-term challenge.

The dispute exposes broader tensions between financial realities and ethical obligations.
The agency faces real constraints in cash flow and sustainability. On the other hand, the artists complain that missing payments and opacity undermine their livelihoods and dignity.
Both positions carry internal logic, which is why neutral fact-finding will likely determine the outcome.

Conclusion

The final judgment remains to be seen.

The crux is evidence and procedure: the existence of settlement records, access to the contract, and whether management duties were actually performed will decide the case.

This dispute highlights the balance between artist rights and agency obligations.
How evidence is assembled in upcoming legal steps will determine whether the terminations are upheld. Greater transparency in settlements and accountable contract performance would be the starting point to rebuild industry trust.
We leave the question to readers: which side do you find more persuasive?