THE BOYZ Members Younghoon and Q Face Property Attachment Orders in One Hundred Label Dispute

THE BOYZ members Younghoon and Q are facing new legal pressure after courts approved provisional property attachment orders sought by One Hundred Label, adding a financial front to an already high-profile contract dispute between the agency and members of the K-pop group.

The orders concern real estate owned by the two artists and are tied to One Hundred Label’s argument that portions of contract payments should be returned if the members do not continue activities through the full term of their exclusive agreements. Younghoon, whose full name is Kim Younghoon, and Q, whose full name is Ji Changmin, have been among the members contesting the agency’s position on the validity and handling of their contracts.

What The Court Orders Mean

A provisional attachment is not a final ruling on who is right in the underlying dispute. It is a temporary preservation measure that can restrict the sale, mortgage, or other use of an asset while a creditor pursues a money claim. In this case, the order allows the agency to secure property while the broader contract arguments continue through court procedures.

For Younghoon, the Seoul Eastern District Court accepted an application concerning an apartment in Seoul’s Seongdong District. The claimed amount was reported as 513,620,061 won. One Hundred Label applied for the attachment on May 28, and after a collateral order was issued in mid-June, the agency submitted a surety insurance certificate worth about 51.4 million won. The court then approved the provisional attachment on June 16.

Q’s property was also brought into the dispute, with an attachment application approved on July 23. The agency’s legal representative characterized the actions against Younghoon and Q as the opening stage of a larger principal claim involving THE BOYZ members, reportedly totaling around 8.8 billion won. The representative also indicated that further applications involving other members were planned.

The Payment Argument At The Center

The agency’s position is that the exclusive contract payments were made on the premise that the artists would remain active under the contract for the agreed period. For Younghoon, One Hundred Label has said the contract term ran from December 8, 2024, through December 7, 2027, and that the total contract payment was 1.5 billion won. The agency calculated a return claim based on the period remaining after an April 23 court decision that suspended the effect of the exclusive contracts, then offset that figure against settlement payments it says were unpaid for the third and fourth quarters of 2025.

Younghoon’s side is challenging the attachment. His legal team submitted an objection to the Seoul Eastern District Court on July 13, arguing that the contract payment is separately defined from artist settlements and that the agreement does not describe the payment as an advance against future settlements. The objection also argues that the contract does not require the return of a prorated amount if the contract ends before the original expiry date.

That distinction matters because the dispute is not simply about whether money changed hands. It turns on how the payment should legally be classified: as a nonrefundable contract payment, as an advance tied to future activity, or as another form of compensation. The answer could affect not only the attachment orders but also the shape of any main lawsuit that follows.

A Wider Contract Dispute

The property orders follow months of conflict between One Hundred Label and most of THE BOYZ. Nine members, excluding New, previously sought an injunction to suspend the effect of their exclusive contracts. The members argued that the agency had failed to meet settlement-payment obligations from July 2025 and had refused requests to inspect settlement materials. They also raised issues related to management duties and the trust required for an exclusive artist-agency relationship.

On April 23, the court accepted the injunction request from the nine members. That earlier decision allowed them to step away from the immediate binding effect of the contracts while the deeper legal questions remained unresolved. The new attachment orders show that the dispute has moved beyond contract status and into competing financial claims.

The next procedural stage is expected to focus on whether the provisional attachment decisions should remain in place. When an objection is filed, the court can set a hearing or argument date and hear from both sides before deciding whether to maintain, modify, or cancel the measure. Until then, the orders should be understood as temporary court-approved restraints, not as a final determination that the agency’s repayment theory will prevail.

For fans and industry observers, the case highlights how quickly idol contract disputes can broaden from questions of scheduling and management into complex litigation over settlements, contract payments, and property. The outcome could have practical consequences for the affected members and may also be watched closely by agencies and artists negotiating long-term exclusive contracts in the K-pop market.