Recently, the first-instance judgment of the entrusted contract dispute between Shanghai Yihai Ying KomiksShi Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yihai Culture) and Cai Xukun were made public. According to the Judgment Document Network, the court found that Cai Xukun did not breach the contract by maliciously, and Cai Xukun was sentenced to pay the former boss 3 million liquidated damages.
It is worth noting that the time of publication of this document has been nearly 9 months since the time of the judgment. Yihai Culture filed an appeal to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court after the first instance judgment.
Cai Xukun was sentenced to 3 million yuan in compensation in the first instance. The court found that he did not breach of contract by maliciously. The plaintiff Yihai Company claimed that in November 2015, he signed a contract with the defendant Cai Xukun, stipulating that the plaintiff was the defendant’s exclusive plenipotent broker, and the contract term was until April 2023. The contract stipulates that if the defendant proposes to terminate the contract, the plaintiff will have to pay the plaintiff an early termination compensation of RMB 3 million per year.
In June 2016, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a supplementary contract. If the defendant unilaterally proposes to terminate the contract, the plaintiff will have to pay an early termination compensation of RMB 30 million per year for every year of termination.
In February 2017, the defendant sent a notice of termination of the contract to the plaintiff and filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the termination of the contract and supplementary agreement signed by both parties. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the court and demanded that the defendant pay the plaintiff 30 million yuan in termination compensation and the liquidated damages of 15 million yuan.
Defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulated that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the termination of the contract required to pay compensation to the plaintiff <a The premise of the Cinema gold is that the plaintiff has put a lot of energy and costs into cultivating the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff has not made effective investment in the training and promotion of the defendant. During the contract period, the defendant did not obtain any remuneration paid by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claimed no basis. In addition, the amount of compensation proposed by the plaintiff Komiks is obviously inflated.
The first instance court held that the 15 million breach of contract loss was a portrait authorization cooperation agreement signed between the plaintiff and the defendant during the trial of the termination dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The termination compensation generated by the plaintiff was caused by the plaintiff’s termination compensation, which was caused by the plaintiff’s attention but did not pay attention to the risk that the cooperation agreement might face inability to perform. Now, the defendant is required to undertake the href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Cinema is under insufficient basis for termination losses.
Regarding the termination compensation part, the defendant was underage when the contract and supplementary contract were signed by the two parties, and the plaintiff and the defendant’s mother Xu signed it. The defendant has not yet formed a clear plan and estimate of his future development and achievements. The long performance period of the two contracts is actually not conducive to the defendant’s own development and the creation of a stable, healthy and orderly environment in the performance industry, and realizes business returns. The uncertainty of the contract has also increased accordingly, so the defendant terminated the contract early, which is reasonable, and it is not a malicious breach of contract. The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in the contract does not comply with the principle of fairness and reason.
In the end, the court determined the termination compensation at its discretion to be 3 million yuan based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment in the defendant, the defendant’s income standards, and the performance period.
The judgment date shown in the above judgment is August 10, 2022. The document shows that if you are not convinced of this judgment, you can be on the date of delivery of the judgmentWithin fifteen days, the appeal shall be submitted to this court, and a copy shall be submitted according to the number of the other party or representatives, and the appeal shall be appealed to the Second Intermediate People’s Court of Haishi City.
According to Qichacha, Yihai Culture appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court after the first instance, and the Babaylan Court issued several court opening announcements. Cinema
The dispute between the two parties has been long-standing. Cai Xukun is underage yet
According to the Securities Times, the termination dispute between Cai Xukun and his former boss Yihai Culture can be traced back to 2015.
In 2015, Cai Xukun signed a contract with Haoshang Media (Hunan) Co., Ltd. for participating in the “Star Moving Asia”. During the recording of the program, due to the transfer of the program producer, Cai Xukun was told to transfer the contract, otherwise he would not be able to continue participating in the program. In order to continue to complete the program recording, on November 17, 201Komiks, Cai Xukun signed a brokerage contract with Yihai Culture, when Cai Xukun was 17 years old.
After the contract was signed, the two parties signed a supplementary contract in June 2016 to modify Cai Xukun’s termination compensation. For example, Cai Xukun’s unilateral termination compensation was changed from 8 million yuan to 80 million yuan, and the early termination compensation was changed from 3 million yuan per year to 30 million yuan per year.
In 2017, Cai Xukun filed a termination of the contract with Yihai Culture and filed a lawsuit. The main reason is that Yihai Culture unilaterally arbitrarily Babaylan increased the contract liquidated damages and compensations, and also required Cai Xukun to bear the responsibility of his ownHe invests in the cost of his acting career activities and withdraws a high share of his acting career income.
In addition, Cai Xukun believes that Yihai Culture has not fulfilled the performance agency obligations agreed in the contract, failed to fulfill the artist’s agency affairs management and operation obligations, and has not made complete and reasonable plans for his acting career, so it is impossible to improve professional and stable support for the better development of his acting career.
However, Yihai Culture tells another story. It stated that on November 12, 2015, he signed a brokerage contract and supplementary agreement with Cai Xukun, stipulating that he is Cai Xukun’s exclusive plenipotent broker, and the contract term is until April 17, 2023. After signing the contract, the company arranged for Cai Xukun to participate in the large-scale cultivation talent show “Star Moving Asia”, and arranged for him to go to South Korea to receive artist training, release albums, etc., to help Cai Xukun develop from a middle school student to a formal debut artist.
In January 2017, the company notified Cai Xukun to participate in the performance, but was rejected. Since then, Cai Xukun refused to participate in the company’s appointment. On February 10 of that year, Cai Xukun proposed to terminate the Brokerage Contract, and then filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the revocation of the brokerage contract.
Yihai Culture does not agree to terminate the contract. In the counterclaim, Komiks was ordered to pay Cai Xukun a penalty of RMB 50 million in breach of contract compensation, and paid 70% of all the acting income (including post-production advertising endorsement income) obtained by Cinema in the online drama and variety show “Idol Trainee” to the company.
On October 29, 2018, Jing’an Court made a judgment to terminate the brokerage contract and compensation agreement signed by both parties. However, regarding the compensation issues caused by the termination of the contract, the judgment stated that the two parties can negotiate on their own, and if they fail to reach the negotiation, they can claim the corresponding rights separately. This also became the origin of future disputes between the two parties.
In November 2022, Yihai Culture published several Weibo posts in succession, explaining the litigation matters with Cai Xukun and revealing a number of expenditure evidence.
Yihai Culture stated that after signing the contract with Cai Xukun in November 2015, the company invested a lot of money and resources to cultivate his acting career, shape his image and promote it, and his early termination of the contract caused huge losses to the company.
The evidence posted by Yihai Culture includes training contracts signed for trainees such as Cai Xukun and some training and even plastic surgery fees, as well as photos of the company’s promotional activities for Cai Xukun’s group, and other information. The relevant materials have attracted great attention on Weibo. In addition to the Cinema court directly due to termination disputes, relevant legal documents show that in recent years, Yihai Culture has also sued Cai Xukun and his endorsed products and companies, including L’Oreal, Yangshengtang, VIVO, etc.
If he sued Cai Xukun, Cai Xukun Studio and VIVO CompanyKomiks, Cinema believes that Cai Xukun and Cai Xukun Studio had cooperated with VIVO without the company’s consent, and agreed that Cai Xukun is the spokesperson for the vivox23 series mobile phones, and shot a large number of advertisements and posters and other promotional materials.
Yihai Culture believes that its behavior infringes on its exclusive brokerage rights, constitutes unfair competition, seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of Yihai Company, and causes significant economic losses to Yihai Company. However, most of these lawsuits ended with Yihai Culture’s withdrawal of the lawsuit.
For the first-instance judgment, many netizens congratulated Cai Xukun on winning the case and successfully terminated the contract↓
As well as netizens used this to warn young people who hoped to enter performing arts companies and MCN institutions↓
Source | Yangcheng Evening News·Yangcheng KomiksSubject Comprehensive Judgment Document Network, Upstream News, Securities Times, @Cai Xukun, Netizen Comments and other editors | Wu Xia