JYJ3’s Note: Remember that this is an announcement from Avex. It seems accurate that Zak Co. and C-JeS Co. withdrew their petitions against Avex. However, everything else is mere speculation – for instance, to withdraw a petition does not imply that the other party had the upper hand.
Central to this withdrawal is the fact that what Zak Co. and C-JeS Co. filed were petitions for (1) injunctive judgments (2) for obstruction with the June charity concert. An injunctive judgment asks the court to order a party (in this case, Avex) to take action or to refrain from action and typically does not involve money damages. Furthermore, an injunctive judgment is an extraordinary form of remedy as compared to money damages and therefore requires some showing of need or practicability.
In this case, Zak Co. and C-JeS Co. were asking the court to presumably stop Avex from interfering with the June charity concert. We now know that the June charity concert is most likely being held. In such a case, there is little for the court to do– nothing the court orders Avex to do or to refrain from doing will affect this June charity concert which is 5 days away. In other words, with the June charity concert being held, there is little reason for this particular petition that deals with the June charity concert to continue standing.
To make this even clearer, a petition for injunctive judgment is different from a petition for declaratory judgment or a lawsuit asking for money damages (the usual kind). In the latter two, if the defendant/respondent (in this case Avex) had done something wrong, then even if the act is already past, the plaintiff/petitioner can get some sort of an opinion from the court. A petition for injunctive judgment, however, does not ask the court to rule whether Avex was proper or improper (as does a declaratory judgment) or to rule whether C-JeS suffered any unjust damages (as does a normal lawsuit for money damages). It merely asks the court to command Avex to either take some action or refrain from taking some action. In this case, since the June charity concert is 5 days away, commanding Avex to stop interfering is not going to make any difference either to C-JeS or Avex. Therefore, this petition for injunctive judgment has no further use. Because a petition for injunctive judgment requires some showing of need, the court may dismiss the petition because, as said above, there is no further need for anything to be done with regards to this June charity concert.
The withdrawal of these petitions therefore is more of an indicator of Zak. Co. and C-JeS Co.’s attitudes and beliefs about the June charity concert than any of the merits of the legal arguments. In other words, JYJ and C-JeS remain free to pursue other means of legal relief in the future against Avex’s many wrongs.
[TRANS] AVEX’s Announcement
On the Petition for Injunctive Judgment Regarding the JUNSU / JEJUNG / YUCHUN Event:
As stated in our press materials of April 28th, on the Charity concerts for the Victims of Tohoku-Kanto Earthquakes by our exclusive artists JUNSU / JEJUNG / YUCHUN, Zak Corporation (hereafter “Zak Co.”) which is the hosting company and the Korean corporation C-JeS Entertainment., Co. LTD (hereafter “C-JeS Co.”) which is the JJY’s agency had petitioned for two injunctive judgment stated below, arguing that our response (to the charity events) were obstruction of business and such.
– Year 2011 Y 1115 Petition for Injunction to Prohibit Obstruction of Business (Civil Section 9) Petitioner Zak Co.
– Year 2011 22020 Petition for Injunction (Civil Section 46) Petitioners Zak Co. and C-JeS Co. Jointly
Our company had felt certain that we would argue our legitimacy through the two petitions for injunctive judgments and as a result receive the judgment of dismissal from the court. However, on May 27th of this year, Zak Co. and C-JeS Co., without having waited for the court decision, themselves withdrew the two petitions.
It is that Zak Co. and C-JeS Co. believed that to maintain the above petitions any further was difficult and so themselves gave up the petitions, and this fact merely signifies the legitimacy of our arguments in a court of law.
We report to you as above.