EXO-CBX vs INB100: Seoul court suspends exclusive contract (what is confirmed, Sep 2026)
Fact-check: On 15 Sep 2026 Seoul Central District Court granted CBX’s preliminary injunction against INB100—exclusive contract paused until merits first-instance judgment; unpaid settlements and broken trust cited. What the order does and does not decide.
TL;DR — On 15 Sep 2026, the Seoul Central District Court (Civil Division 50, Presiding Judge Lee Sang-hoon) granted a preliminary injunction filed by EXO subunit CBX (Chen, Baekhyun, Xiumin / 첸백시) against label INB100. Their exclusive contract is suspended until a first-instance judgment in the related merits case seeking confirmation that the contract has no effect. The court also barred INB100 from signing third-party deals against the members’ will, forcing activity performance, or interfering with independent entertainment work. The bench cited unpaid settlement money and a broken trust relationship. Merits trial schedule: not yet set as of the wire reports.
This is a what-is-confirmed explainer for foreign readers—not a fandom timeline rewrite. Primary wires: Newsis, Donga, JoongAng, Star News.
Confirmed timeline
| When | What wires report |
|---|---|
| 2023-06 | Baekhyun founded INB100 after the earlier SM dispute / settlement era (background in Newsis / Donga). |
| 2024-05 | INB100 was folded into One Hundred (원헌드레드) under chair Cha Ga-won, per Newsis/Donga. |
| Mar–Apr 2026 | CBX notified INB100 of contract termination, citing unpaid contract fees / settlement (정산금) (Newsis). |
| 18 Aug 2026 (approx. “last month” from 15 Sep stories) | CBX filed (1) preliminary injunction to stop contract effect and (2) merits suit for confirmation that the exclusive contract has no legal effect (Newsis/Donga). |
| 7 Sep 2026 | Injunction hearing: INB100 did not appear and filed no written brief; hearing closed (Newsis/Donga/JoongAng). |
| 15 Sep 2026 | Court grants the injunction (Newsis/Donga/JoongAng/Star News). |
| As of 15 Sep wires | First merits hearing date: not designated. |
What the injunction actually does
| Order (per Newsis / Donga / JoongAng) | Plain English |
|---|---|
| Exclusive contract effect suspended until merits 1st-instance judgment | INB100 cannot treat the exclusive deal as fully in force while the main case is pending at first instance. |
| No third-party contracts against CBX’s will (broadcasters, etc.) | Agency cannot lock them into shows/deals they refuse. |
| No forcing “perform the entertainment activity” on third parties | Agency cannot compel performance through counterparties. |
| No interference with independent entertainment activity | CBX can pursue solo/unit work without INB100 blocking it under the exclusive clause—within the injunction’s scope. |
This is not a final verdict that the contract never existed. Korean preliminary injunctions (가처분) are temporary relief pending the merits case (본안).
Why the court said yes (sourced reasons)
Quoted substance from Newsis / Donga / JoongAng (paraphrased in English; Korean originals control):
- When CBX entertainment revenue arose, INB100 had a contractual duty to pay settlement amounts—and had not paid.
- That failure was attributable to INB100 and broke mutual trust.
- Without basic trust, a normal exclusive relationship is hard to maintain.
- If merits litigation drags on, CBX’s independent work for the remaining term would be heavily constrained—raising concerns beyond pure money, including freedom of occupation / activity (constitutional framing in the wires).
What is not decided here
| Topic | Status in this explainer |
|---|---|
| Final “contract void / never existed” | Pending merits suit; first hearing unset in 15 Sep wires |
| Full money judgment / exact unpaid won amounts | Not quantified as court-found totals in the injunction stories cited above |
| Cha Ga-won’s separate criminal case | JoongAng notes Cha was indicted in custody on large-scale fraud allegations with a hearing mentioned for mid-October—separate from this civil injunction. Do not merge them into one “CBX won fraud case” headline. |
| YouTube / community damage tallies (hundreds of billions, villas, etc.) | Treat as unverified commentary unless a court or party filing is produced—Newsis has covered such claims as youtuber assertions, not adjudicated fact |
| SM Entertainment disputes / asset freezes | Older, separate track (e.g. earlier Newsis on SM provisional attachment). Not the 15 Sep INB100 order |
Why foreign readers are seeing this now
r/kpop and r/exo threads spiked because the court grant is a concrete procedural win after months of “termination notice ignored” reporting. For Synortex readers: the useful fact is the injunction scope—suspended exclusivity + anti-interference orders—not fan speculation about agency collapse.
FAQ
Did CBX “leave” INB100 forever on 15 Sep?
Not as a final judgment. The exclusive contract’s effect is paused until the merits first-instance decision. Outcomes can still change on the merits or on appeal paths that later reporting would need to cover.
Can INB100 still collect or manage their activities?
Under the reported order: they cannot force third-party deals against CBX’s will, compel performance that way, or interfere with independent activity. Day-to-day operational details beyond those bullets are not fully spelled out in the wires—avoid inventing management org charts.
Is One Hundred / Cha Ga-won the same as INB100?
Wires: INB100 was founded by Baekhyun, then absorbed into Cha Ga-won’s One Hundred label orbit. The defendant named in the injunction is INB100. Cha’s criminal case is adjacent context, not the civil holding.
Is this the same fight as SM vs CBX?
No. SM disputes (settlement percentages, attachments, group promotions) are a different legal track. This September order is CBX v. INB100.
Sources
- Newsis — CBX injunction granted vs INB100 (15 Sep 2026)
- Donga — same ruling, One Hundred absorption background
- JoongAng — “trust broken”; Cha indictment note
- Star News — injunction summary
- Background only: Newsis — Apr 2026 termination notice reporting
Hero: stock courthouse / law image for illustration (not a photo of the members or the courtroom).
← Back to all posts