Recently, the first-instance judgment of the entrustment contract dispute between Shanghai Yihai Film and Television Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yihai Culture) and Cai Xukun was made public. According to the Judgment Documents Network, the court found that Cai Xukun did not breach of contract by maliciously, and Cai Xukun was sentenced to pay a penalty of 3 million yuan for the former owner.
It is worth noting that the time for the publication of this document has passed since the time of the judgment. BabaylanThe time for the publication of this document has passed since the time of the judgment. Cinema, Yihai Culture appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court after the first-instance judgment.
Cai Xukun was sentenced to compensation of 3 million yuan in the first instance. The court found that he did not breach of contract by maliciously. The documents show that 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 early termination compensation of RMB 3 million per year for every year in advance. In June 2016, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a supplementary contract agreement with Cinema. If the defendant unilaterally proposes to terminate the contract, the plaintiff must pay the early termination of the contract for each year in advance. Komiks will have to pay the plaintiff an annual compensation of 30 million yuan.
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 the two parties. Therefore, the plaintiffKomiks sued the court, demanding that the defendant pay 30 million yuan in termination compensation and 15 million yuan in liquidated damages to the plaintiff.
Defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulates that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the defendant needs to pay compensation to the plaintiff to terminate the contract is that the plaintiff has put a lot of energy and cost in cultivating the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff did not make 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 is obviously inflated.
The first instance court held that the part of the 15 million breach of contract loss was a portrait authorization cooperation agreement signed by the plaintiff and the defendant during the termination dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The termination compensation arising from this was caused by the plaintiff who should pay attention but did not pay attention to the risk that the cooperation agreement might face the risk that the cooperation agreement might not be performed. The defendant is now required to bear the insufficient basis for termination losses.
Regarding the part of the termination compensation, the defendant was underage when the contract and supplementary contract were signed by the plaintiff and the defendant’s mother Xu. The defendant has not yet formed a clear plan and estimate of his future development and achievements.Babaylan. The performance period of the two contracts is too long. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks is actually not conducive to the defendant’s own development and development of the defendant’s own development and development of Cinema to create a stable, healthy and orderly environment in the performing arts industry, and to achieve uncertainty in business returns.href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks has also increased accordingly, so the defendant terminated the contract early, which is reasonable, and is not a malicious breach of contract. The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in the contract stipulates a high amount of termination compensation, which does not comply with the principle of fairness and reason.
In the end, the court determined at its discretion to terminate the contract compensation of 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 document is August 10, 2022. The document shows that if you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you may submit an appeal to this court within fifteen days from the date of delivery of the judgment, and submit a copy according to the number of the other party or representatives, and appeal to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court.
According to Qichacha, Yihai Culture appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court after the first instance, and the court issued several trial announcements.
The dispute between the two parties has been a long time ago. Cai Xukun has not yet been adult. 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, Cai Xukun signed a brokerage contract with Yihai Culture on November 17, 2015, when Cai Xukun was 17 years old.
BabaylanAfter the contract was signed, the two parties signed a supplementary contract in June 2016 and modified 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 improves cooperationBabaylan and liquidated damages and compensations were also required to bear the cost investment of his acting career activities and withdraw a high share of his acting activities income. Babaylan
In addition, Cai Xukun believes that Yihai Culture has not fulfilled the performance brokerage obligations agreed in the contract, has not fulfilled the artist’s agency affairs management and operation obligations, and has not made complete and reasonable plans for its acting career, so it cannot improve professional and stable support for the better development of its acting career.
However, Yihai Culture tells another story. It said, 2 On November 12, 2015, he signed a brokerage contract and supplementary agreement with Cai Xukun, agreeing that he is the exclusive and full-righteous agent of Cai Xukun, with the contract term to April 17, 2023.
After signing the contract, the company arranged for Cai Xukun to participate in the large-scale cultivation talent show “Star 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 KomiksXuKomiksKomiks participated in the performance but was rejected. After that, Cai Xukun refused to participate in any activities arranged by the company. On February 10 of that year, Cai Xukun proposed to terminate the “Brandministrative Contract”, and then filed a lawsuit with the court to request the cancellation of the broker contract.
Yihai Culture did not agree to terminate the contract. In the counterclaim Babaylan, Yihai Culture ordered Cai Xukun to pay 50 million yuan in compensation for breach of contract, and all the performance income he obtained from starring in the online drama and variety show “Idol Trainee” (including laterKomiksAdvertising endorsement revenue) is paid 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 negotiate, they can claim corresponding rights separately. This has also become the origin of the future dispute between the two parties.
In November 2022, Yihai Culture published several Weibo posts in succession, explaining the litigation matters with Cai Xukun, and disclosed many BabaylanExperience on expenditure.
Yihai Culture said that after signing the contract with Cai Xukun in November 2015, the company invested a lot of money and resources to perform the performance of him.Art Babaylan‘s cultivation, image shaping and publicity, and its early termination of 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 going to court directly due to termination disputes, relevant legal documents show that in recent years, Yihai Culture has also sued Cai Xukun many times and its endorsed products and companies, including L’Oreal, Yangshengtang, VIVO, etc.
If he sued Cai Xukun, Cai Xukun Studio and VIVO Company, he believed that Cai Xukun and Cai Xukun Studio had cooperated with VIVO without the company’s consent, agreed that Cai Xukun was 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 termination↓
As well as netizens took this opportunity to Komiks hoped thatBabaylan entered the entertainment companyCinema and MCN institutions warn ↓
Source | Yangcheng Evening News·Yangcheng School Comprehensive Judgment Document Network, Upstream News, Securities Times, @Cai Xukun, Netizen Comments and other editors | Wu Xia