Lee Seung-gi presents evidence of gaslighting in legal battle against former agency Hook Entertainment, alleging manipulation over his financial status as a 'minus singer'.

In a dramatic court session on the 13th, singer Lee Seung-gi faced off against his former agency, Hook Entertainment, amid allegations of “gaslighting” and financial mismanagement. New evidence in the form of recorded conversations revealed that Hook executives labeled Lee as a "negative artist," citing early album losses and inflated marketing expenses as justifications. Despite mounting evidence presented in court, Hook executives, particularly Director A, claimed they did not recall discussing such matters and denied providing any financial incentives to journalists. The courtroom drama unfolded at the Seoul Central District Court, where Lee Seung-gi has sought clarity on his earnings and contracts from Hook Entertainment. According to the records, the disputed conversation took place on August 8, 2022, during a clothing brand shoot, where the agency's executives reiterated that Lee’s early career was marred by financial deficits. The case highlights the ongoing tension between Lee and Hook, especially as Lee has publicly stated doubts about the claims of being a "negative artist." Since requesting financial statements over a year ago, Lee has faced delays and insufficient explanations from Hook, raising questions about transparency and fairness in their financial dealings. Despite having released 137 songs under Hook's label, the disputes have escalated following a preliminary court victory for Lee, who was awarded significant compensation yet continues to challenge the agency. Lee's situation reflects broader issues within the K-pop industry, as he seeks to protect not only his interests but also those of upcoming artists facing similar hurdles. In response to the recent revelations, Hook Entertainment’s representatives opted to remain tight-lipped about the ongoing proceedings. Director A acknowledged he couldn’t recall the details of the conversations in question, and other executives denied any wrongdoing related to financial incentives offered to media professionals. As the legal battle continues, the implications of this case raise critical conversations about transparency and accountability in the industry.