The dispute involving THE BOYZ has moved into the public eye.
Nine members notified their agency they intend to terminate their exclusive contracts.
The members say unpaid settlements and failures of promised support are the core problems.
The label, however, rejects the termination request.
"Cracks in the contract: where does the group's future go?"
Case overview
The outline of the case is now visible.
THE BOYZ debuted in 2017 and built momentum quickly in the K-pop market (K-pop is South Korea's popular music industry that has global reach).
However, after transferring to Wonhundred Label in December 2024, the situation diverged.
From July 2025 the members alleged that settlement payments stopped and that support—such as vehicles and rehearsal space—was withdrawn.
In February 2026, nine members, excluding New (stage name), delivered a formal termination notice, turning the dispute into a legal confrontation.
Compared with usual industry practice, this case matters beyond a single group.
Settlement (payment) problems go to an artist's livelihood, and failures in support directly affect the conditions needed to rehearse and perform.
Therefore, this is not merely an internal quarrel but a potential sign of structural tension between artists and management.
Background and causes
The background is complex.
After their 2017 debut THE BOYZ secured a meaningful foothold with fans and in the market.
When the group moved to Wonhundred Label in December 2024, the contract was written on the premise of an 11-member formation.
In June 2025, member Ju Haknyeon left amid a personal controversy (a public matter that affected his participation), reducing the lineup to 10. The label says it tried to persuade partners and accept losses to keep the group active.
Nevertheless, the members claim that from July 2025 onward payments stopped and promised support—rehearsal rooms, vehicles, and other resources—was not provided.
According to the members, these conditions created income instability and pressured their daily work, leading to psychological strain.
On the other hand, the label cites the original contractual assumptions, unforeseeable difficulties after the lineup change, and financial losses tied to the departure as reasons for strain on its operations.
Thus, the root causes are not one-sided. They lie in how contract terms, the expectations at the time of transfer, and subsequent practical losses interacted.
Support for the members' termination
The members' claims are straightforward.
Their argument rests on law and lived reality.
First, settlement disputes are not just accounting details; they affect basic rights and livelihoods. If income was not paid consistently from July 2025, that could amount to a material breach of contract.
Second, a management company's obligations typically include physical and administrative support—rehearsal space, equipment, and transportation. When those supports stop, artists cannot prepare properly for performances, which damages the core value of their work.
The psychological toll and the collapse of trust are also central.
Trust forms a practical foundation for any ongoing contract. However, when trust is broken, continuing the same contractual relationship becomes practically impossible.
Moreover, the K-pop industry has repeated examples of management failures, and calls to protect artists' rights have grown louder. From this perspective, the members' choice can be read as a necessary move to protect their livelihoods and artistic dignity.
Comparative cases matter too.
There are precedents—domestic and international—where courts recognized artists' right to terminate contracts over unpaid settlements. If the members can present documents, bank records, and testimony proving long-term nonpayment and lack of support, their chances in court would be significant.
Public support from fans and wider attention also give the members room to seek new working conditions or partners.
That said, the members are not automatically free of responsibility.
They must follow the agreed termination procedures and consider any damage to the label caused by abrupt withdrawal.
Still, given the available public claims and circumstances, the termination notice looks like a reasoned step toward restoring rights rather than a simple walkout.
The members' complaints force a renewed look at industry conduct and artist protections.
Support for the label's position
The label's counterarguments are also clear.
The label frames its response around contractual assumptions and fairness.
Wonhundred says it invested significant sums based on an 11-member plan: advanced fees, infrastructure, and promotional spending. When a member left, the business plan was disrupted and financial losses followed. The company says it absorbed deficits and tried to maintain the group's activities.
From that view, a unilateral termination demand threatens contractual fairness and business continuity.
The label also points to legal process and contractual compliance.
Contracts allocate rights and duties to both sides; a sudden unilateral exit can be a contractual breach. The company highlights the costs tied to sponsors, scheduled performances, and advertising commitments, arguing that these stakeholders would be harmed by abrupt termination.
Practically, the label must explain to investors and partners why previously made plans changed and why costs should be borne differently.
Seen this way, the members' move prompts questions about whether they followed agreed procedures and whether their evidence is sufficient to prove a legal breach.
If the members cannot substantiate unpaid settlements or if the label proves it fulfilled many obligations, a court might side with the company. Also, since group continuity affects many business partners, the label argues it has broader responsibilities beyond a single group's roster.
In sum, the label's position emphasizes contractual respect and shared commercial responsibility.
Its view has merit, and it is reasonable to urge mediation and negotiation before any final break is allowed.
Legal outlook and industry impact
The prognosis is cautious.
Legally, the existence and severity of breaches are the key issues.
If the members produce bank records, contractual addenda, and witness testimony showing long-term nonpayment and lack of support, a court could validate termination. Conversely, if the label documents payments, partial support, or unavoidable costs after the lineup change, the court could reject the termination claim.
Therefore, evidence collection, fact-finding, and interim dispute procedures will be decisive.
The industry-wide effects are not trivial.
A halted group causes ripple effects for fans, partners, and scheduled events. It also pushes broader conversations about artist protections and management responsibilities. If courts favor the artists, the decision could pressure labels to revise contract practices across the industry.
Financially, consequences run both ways.
The label must account for sunk investments and future revenue loss, while members may face limits on solo activities if legal restraints apply. These practical constraints make negotiated settlements attractive but often hard to reach.
Until legal clarity appears, the sector may see increased uncertainty about contracts and artist mobility.
Conclusion and recommendations
The conclusion is mixed but actionable.
On the surface this dispute is about payments and support. Beneath the surface are shifted contractual assumptions, lineup changes, and the question of industry responsibility.
Both the members' claims for rights protection and the label's need for business continuity contain valid points.
Thus the fastest, least damaging path is objective verification of facts and mediation to reach agreement. However, if talks fail, expect a legal resolution.
Two practical steps stand out.
First, the members should organize and submit clear documentation of alleged unpaid settlements and support failures (bank statements, logs, written requests). Second, the label should publish transparent accounting and communicate how lineup changes affected finances and obligations to partners.
Both the industry and fan communities should use this moment to press for clearer, fairer contract practices.
Which side would you place greater weight on?
