‘Strongest Baseball’ Reveal the production cost details and negotiate or go to court... There‘s a lot to talk about [Comprehensive]
Photo | JTBC
As the conflict between broadcaster JTBC and production company Studio C1 over the popular JTBC entertainment series ‘Strongest Baseball’ deepens, JTBC and Studio C1 have once again released lengthy statements.
JTBC stated in an official statement on the 12th, “To get to the point, most of Studio C1‘s claims can be resolved by disclosing the production cost details and processing them according to the existing contract between the two companies.”
That’s true. Studio C1 is an affiliate in which JTBC holds a portion of the shares and is a production service provider. JTBC has full control of programming and IP rights. This is a typical broadcast production system. Therefore, Studio C1, which is paying the production costs, just needs to disclose the entire production cost statement as JTBC claims.
Studio C1 said that JTBC’s continued suspicions about where the production costs were used and its statement pointing this out distorts the facts themselves and constitutes intolerable defamation of Studio C1 and PD Jang Si-won.
Both sides are just repeating the same thing in long statements. Fighting over statements will only tire the viewers. This is an issue that can be resolved in court. There’s no need to fight over long statements like this every time. The numbers speak for themselves, so why are they talking first? It seems like a quick decision would be to stop wasting unnecessary time on the numbers game and proceed with legal procedures.
● Here is the full text of JTBC’s second official statement regarding ‘Strongest Baseball’
To conclude, most of C1’s claims can be dealt with by disclosing the production cost details and processing them according to the existing contract between the two companies.
Nevertheless, I think there are some of you who are curious about the various claims made by C1, so let me explain.
1) JTBC and C1 agreed to use all production costs paid for each episode as the program’s production cost, and this was clearly stated in the contract. Therefore, payment and execution of production costs should be in accordance with the provisions of the joint production contract. JTBC wanted to confirm whether all production costs paid to C1 were used for the program’s production cost, but C1 is refusing to do so. For example, if a game is broadcast twice, it is reasonable to pay only once for the production cost, such as equipment rental fee, payment rental fee, and planning cost incurred per game, but it is difficult to understand why it should be considered as paid twice and whether it is actually paid twice.
Article 5 (Payment of production costs, etc.)
⑧ ‘Studio’may not use the production cost for any purpose other than the production cost of the ‘program’.
2) Contrary to C1‘s claim that the payment of production cost was not made in the form of ‘post-bill or actual cost settlement’, but in the form of ‘turn-key contract’, the two companies entered into a contract in the form of “actual cost settlement” and “post-settlement”. The joint production contract between the two companies clearly stipulates that ‘C1 will settle the production cost corresponding to the episodes of the program that was originally broadcast in the same month and issue a tax invoice, and JTBC will pay the production cost accordingly.’
Article 5 (Payment of production costs, etc.)
④ ‘JTBC Central’ shall pay the production cost in Paragraph ② according to the conditions and schedule below.
1. (Omitted)
2. Production cost per episode: ‘Studio’ shall settle the production cost corresponding to the episodes of ‘Program’ that were originally broadcast in the same month by the end of the month in which the ‘Program’ was originally broadcast on ‘JTBC Channel’ and issue a tax invoice to ‘JTBC Central’. ‘JTBC JoongAng’ shall deposit cash into ‘Studio’s account by the end of the following month from the date of issuance of the tax invoice.
In other words, the contract between C1 and JTBC is in the form of a so-called “actual cost settlement”, “post-settlement”, where the production cost per episode is set in advance and then C1 bills JTBC for the actual production costs it spent, and that cost is paid. Therefore, C1’s claim that the contract was signed on a turnkey basis or that there can be no overcharge because it is not a post-settlement or actual cost settlement is directly contradictory to the production contract.
In addition, the contract clearly stipulated that the production cost would be used only for the net production cost of the program. Therefore, C1 must transparently disclose that it did not use the production cost for any purpose other than the net production cost, according to the joint production contract between the two companies. C1‘s position this time is an admission that the production cost was used for purposes other than the net production cost of the program.
3) JTBC has been treating C1 with the best conditions in the industry among production companies by paying C1 a stable production margin and distributing a considerable share of virtual advertising, indirect advertising, sponsorship, and digital profits. C1’s claim for profit distribution from direct and additional businesses is an unfounded demand that has not been agreed upon. Therefore, C1’s claim that JTBC understated C1’s distribution amount for additional businesses in the financial statements is to reflect the distribution cost according to C1’s unreasonable demand as it is in JTBC’s financial statements.
4) In any of the management and financial materials that C1 claims to have provided, there is no detailed execution history or supporting evidence of the production cost of ‘Strongest Baseball’. C1 is misleading people into believing that the disclosure of financial statements is the disclosure of production cost details and supporting evidence.
JTBC sent a letter to C1 on February 10 to replace the production staff as the trust relationship was damaged due to C1’s excessive production cost claim and non-disclosure of execution details, and since then, as the owner of the IP for ‘Strongest Baseball’, has legally and justly pushed forward with the production. C1 claims that JTBC is attempting to steal the intellectual property rights to ‘Strongest Baseball’, but according to the contract, all IPs related to ‘Strongest Baseball’ clearly belong to JTBC. Rather, it is C1 that is trying to steal JTBC‘s IP rights by forcing the production of Season 4 of ‘Strongest Baseball’.
Article 11 (Copyrights of the Program)
① In principle, the copyrights (including the right to create secondary works, hereinafter referred to as ‘copyrights’) for the ‘Program’ (including the original filming and editing originals) belong 100% to ‘JTBC JoongAng’.
5) The pursuit of profit is the purpose of the existence of all companies. C1 can take profits according to its contract with JTBC, but it cannot be justified to take unpromised profits by charging excessive production costs. Rather, C1’s argument is tantamount to acknowledging that it made a profit by leaving behind production costs, and the dispute can be resolved according to the contract.
6) Before raising the issue of dividends that we never requested, it is a priority to clarify who generated that ‘substantial amount of distributable profit’ and how.
Above all, as we have requested several times, we would like to emphasize that the clearest and most efficient way to resolve the controversy over the production cost of ‘Strongest Baseball’ and to resolve the confusion of viewers and casts is for C1 to objectively and transparently disclose the details of how the production cost was used along with supporting materials.
In this statement, C1 has not revealed any details of the production cost use or any intention to disclose them, and is in effect only repeating the claim that it can use the production cost paid by JTBC however it wants. This claim by C1 is extremely unfair, and we once again request that the details of the production cost be transparently disclosed.
● Below is the full text of the second official statement from Studio C1 and PD Jang Si-won regarding ‘Strongest Baseball’
JTBC said, “This is an issue that can be resolved by disclosing the details of the production cost and handling it according to the existing contract between the two companies.” However, it is unclear why C1, an independent corporation and not even an affiliate of JTBC, should disclose the details of the production cost to JTBC, and JTBC has no basis for requesting this in the first place. Please use common sense to consider whether or not a business would disclose its cost details to a third party, especially to a party that is unfairly trying to infringe on its business, and whether such a request is justified. In particular, JTBC is pushing ahead with its own production as if it had been waiting for Season 3 to end, and we would like to tell you once again that it is obstructing the filming of C1 in all directions.
If JTBC has the legal and contractual rights as they claim, and if there is a suspicion that there is a problem with the filming and use of the production costs for ‘The Strongest Baseball‘, then they should present grounds and take legal action accordingly. It is not like a large corporation with great influence wants to start a war of words with a small outsourced production company. However, I think that the fact that they are making excuses by continuously releasing statements and making excuses is part of a plan to obstruct the filming of C1 in all directions by agitating the main cast and production crew and to enjoy ’The Strongest Baseball“ for the first time. Below is C1‘s position on JTBC’s claims.
1. As JTBC mentioned, Article 5, Section 6 of the joint production agreement stipulates that *the studio cannot use the production costs for any purpose other than the net production cost of the program. First, regarding JTBC‘s groundless claims, C1 has never used the production costs for purposes other than the production costs, and has never made a profit from the production costs. C1’s internal reserves are profits that C1 was legally contractually supposed to receive, and will become a source of dividends for shareholders in the future. If C1‘s program is successful and the reserves increase, the value of C1’s stake held by JTBC will also increase, and it is structured so that it will receive equal compensation according to performance as a shareholder along with PD Jang Si-won. However, C1 has not paid a single won in dividends to date, considering that JTBC‘s stake is still over 20%, as I mentioned before.
C1 has never made repeated claims for equipment rental fees, paid rental fees, opportunity expenses, etc. Let me be clear here. The ‘production cost per episode’ refers to the ‘product unit price‘ for a single 120-minute broadcast of a program.‘ And before the opening of each season, JTBC and C1 agree on the total number of production episodes (number of episodes produced) and the production cost per episode, and set the total amount in advance. It is not that the actual production cost for filming a 9-inning game is verified and settled one by one as JTBC claims, and as I will explain later, JTBC has never requested this in the past 3 years.
Despite the fact that the deposit and unit price are set in advance, the division of episodes is a structure to manage the risk of JTBC as a broadcasting channel. For example, even if C1 spends the production cost while filming a game well, if the broadcasting portion (120 minutes) is not produced and the 1-episode broadcast cannot be produced or delivered, the production cost per episode cannot be received from JTBC right away. In short, it is not that if the actual production cost is incurred after the fact, it will be returned to JTBC, and if it is incurred more, it will be charged additionally to JTBC. The joint production contract clearly stipulates the production cost as a fixed amount per episode as follows.
Article 5 (Payment of production costs, etc.) ”JTBC JoongAng’ shall pay the“Studio“ the following amount as production costs.
2. Production cost and infrastructure usage fee per episode: Daily amount #** won (hereinafter referred to as production cost per episode)
To summarize JTBC’s position. c1 is ① that they should not make a profit in the turn-key structure with JTBC, while ② even if they have spent the cost, if they cannot deliver for any reason, they will not receive the production cost and must bear 100% of the loss, and 3 even if they have delivered, they must also bear 100% of the cost exceeding the pre-determined production cost per episode. If a contract with this structure exists, it will be the subject of research as a modern-day slave contract.
2. I would like to ask how Article 5, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph 2 of the joint production agreement is interpreted as “actual cost settlement” and “post-settlement.” The above clause, disclosed by JTBC, is about the payment procedure for production costs per episode, and stipulates that “by the end of the month in which the program was broadcast, the production costs corresponding to the episodes that were originally broadcast in that month will be settled and a tax invoice will be issued to JTBC JoongAng. JTBC JoongAng will deposit the cash into the studio’s account by the end of the following month from the date of issuance of the tax invoice.” This is a clause for managing JTBC’s risk explained in #1 above. Even if C1 spends money to produce the program, if it is not aired on the JTBC channel for any reason, C1 is structurally unable to collect the production costs in the first place. I would like to ask JTBC where in this clause the phrases “actual cost settlement” or “post-settlement” or similar content are written.
Furthermore, according to Article 5, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph 2 of the joint production agreement disclosed by JTBC, a tax invoice was already issued through a “settlement” every month in the past, and “full deposit completed” was made to the studio’s account at the end of the term. If “actual cost settlement” or “post-settlement” are true, I would also like to ask why JTBC deposited the full amount for three years without raising any issues. The fact that there are no provisions for procedures after Article 5, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph 2 of the joint production agreement is evidence that this is a turn-key contract, and the monthly deposit transactions for three years are evidence in themselves, and JTBC has presented and admitted this on its own.
3. The distribution of direct and additional business units is not an unfounded demand that has not been agreed upon. C1 is not demanding profit distribution for the additional business that JTBC is conducting with its capabilities using the supplied footage. What C1 is taking issue with is the profits related to the direct event.
The direct event is exclusively planned, recruited, conducted, and organized by C1 personnel, and in fact, it has been conducted that way. Therefore, it is demanding profit distribution according to the promise. The contractual basis for this is Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the joint production agreement. In fact, JTBC distributed profits for two direct events in Season 1, provided C1 with data on the flood of direct events in Season 2 on the premise of profit distribution (unpaid), and requested the event to proceed with Season 3, with the promise of profit distribution, during the preparation stage for the direct event, by the CEO.
Article 12 (Permission to Use the *Program)
② All profits accrued to ‘JTBC’ pursuant to this Article shall belong to JTBC‘.
However, ’JTBC‘ may distribute business profits only in cases where the cooperation of ’Studio‘ is required for ’JTBC‘to conduct ’additional business‘using ’Program‘of Paragraph ①5, and the distribution ratio shall be mutually agreed upon between the contracting parties for each business.
JTBC seems to be taking the position that ”there is no explicit ratio in the documents, so there is nothing to distribute to 1“, Then what were the above contract provisions, previous distribution cases, and the CEO‘s request for a direct exercise? If it was a request for free service from C1, it should have been said that way. Doesn’t it mean that it will outsource all the work and monopolize the profits, and it does so by making excuses and avoiding specifying it in the documents, while saying, “Shouldn‘t the event be held?” and using the players and viewers as bait.
4. JTBC says that the financial information provided by C1 does not include the production cost details and supporting evidence for “The Strongest Baseball.” Please use your common sense to see which company in the world would provide production cost details and supporting evidence to a shareholder with a mere 20% stake, and to a party that is obstructing filming in every way in order to take away all the achievements that C1 has made so far. First of all, if there is a legal or contractual basis to request the details of the production cost and supporting evidence, JTBC would know better and C1 will respond appropriately to these procedures. We hope that JTBC will stop misleading the public by making these unreasonable demands as if they had the right.
5. JTBC says that C1 took unpromised profits through excessive production cost claims and that they will settle the dispute according to the contract. Disputing the issue according to the contract is what C1 wants. And if there really is a basis for this story, wouldn’t they be able to file a legal claim for a refund?
And I don’t know what “unpromised profits” are when it comes to transactions according to a pre-production cost agreement. Where on earth does the term “unpromised profits” come from? Has it ever been used before? Or is it a term that JTBC made up itself? It ran for three seasons, the production cost was agreed upon for each season, and for three years, without any problems, monthly tax invoices were issued and the full amount was deposited. JTBC now seems to be taking issue with the fact that one game was broadcast twice, but if that is true, does that mean they didn’t know that it was broadcast twice on their channel until now? If the production cost proposed by JTBC was excessive, they could have talked about it and adjusted it then, and if the conditions were not right, JTBC could have just not aired it. JTBC is the one who recognized the value of “Strongest Baseball” and is also making significant profits through it (although C1 may not know). It is not asking for JTBC to distribute these profits, but C1’s position is that they should keep their promise.
6. “A significant amount of distributable profits” were generated through C1’s business activities. JTBC participated in C1 as a shareholder in order to receive the corresponding profits. A stock company must present a basis for ’proving‘ the source of distributable profits’ to the counterparty of a business transaction, and as explained above, we would like to make it clear once again that the distributable profits are comprised of profits that C1 was legitimately contractually supposed to receive.
Lastly, I will briefly explain IP. Article 11 of the joint production contract with JTBC stipulates that the copyright property rights (including the right to create secondary works, hereinafter referred to as ’copyright‘) for the ”’’program‘ (including the original filming and editing originals) under the Copyright Act shall, in principle, belong 100% to ’JTBC Central‘.“ Here, the ’program‘ is defined as ”Strongest Baseball (2023),”which is produced on the premise of programming on JTBC’s channels and JTBC‘s affiliated channels. In other words, the IP for which JTBC currently holds the copyright is limited to the filmed footage from Season 3, which has already aired.
Beyond this, the name, composition, and concept of ’Strongest Baseball‘, as well as the ’team‘ comprised of the manager and players, are not the property of a specific person but belong solely to the ’Monsters‘ and their fans. This means that it is not an intellectual property right that can be transferred or attributed to JTBC under any contract.
Thank you.
● Below is the full text of JTBC’s first official position regarding ‘Strongest Baseball’
We will tell you about the progress of the new season of JTBC‘s ‘Strongest Baseball’.
JTBC is reporting on the progress in order to resolve the growing confusion among casts and viewers regarding the new season of ‘Strongest Baseball’ and to correct some misunderstandings that JTBC is taking unfair measures.
JTBC has been discussing the progress of the new season with Studio C1 (hereinafter ‘C1’), which produced ‘Strongest Baseball’ up to season 3, but has decided not to produce the new season of ‘Strongest Baseball’ with C1 after determining that the relationship of mutual trust has been seriously damaged and that it is no longer possible to restore it. It has been decided.
JTBC estimates that C1 overcharged the production cost for the three seasons of ‘Strongest Baseball’ by hundreds of millions to billions of won.
When signing the ‘Strongest Baseball’ contract, C1 set the production cost per episode based on the production cost required to film one game. However, even when C1 split one game into two parts and produced it, it charged the production cost for two episodes as before, including the production cost that was not actually spent. It appears that C1 double-charged the production cost in this way.
Accordingly, JTBC requested production cost execution details and supporting documents from C1 in order to confirm whether the production cost paid to C1 was properly used for the ‘Strongest Baseball’ program, cast, and staff, or whether it was used for other purposes or processed as additional profits for C1, but C1 is not disclosing the relevant data without a justifiable reason. C1 is an affiliate of JTBC, and JTBC is the owner of the IP for “Strongest Baseball” and the business entity that invested all of the production costs. It is not normally understandable for a contract between businesses to not disclose the details of cost execution, and it is only right that JTBC should transparently disclose that it did not use the production costs it paid for other purposes, but C1 is ignoring this.
This may have stemmed from the judgment that even if they ignore JTBC’s request, JTBC has no choice but to pay the production costs requested by C1 and continue broadcasting in order to keep its promise to the viewers.
C1’s actions can only be considered unfair measures that take advantage of its superior position by using the viewers as bait. In the end, JTBC accepted C1’s actions and finished Season 3.
However, after the end of the 2024 season, they decided that they could no longer continue their partnership with C1, who did not respond to JTBC’s legitimate requests. This decision was made because we could not confirm or be certain whether the production cost was being used to make ‘Strongest Baseball’ a better program, or whether it was being used properly for the ‘Strongest Monsters’ players and staff.
Since JTBC notified C1 of a production staff change on February 10, C1 can no longer be involved in the production of ‘Strongest Baseball’. Furthermore, since JTBC holds all copyrights to ‘Strongest Baseball’, C1 cannot independently produce ‘Strongest Baseball’ Season 4. Despite this, C1 attempted to proceed with the tryouts. In response, JTBC announced the cancellation of the tryouts in order to prevent innocent victims such as ordinary participants, cast members, and staff members from being created during filming that was not guaranteed to be broadcast. However, C1 pushed ahead with the tryouts, and as the confusion among the cast and viewers continued, we are sharing our position like this.
We are very sorry for causing concern to everyone who has been waiting for ‘Strongest Baseball’ due to unavoidable circumstances. JTBC always puts its promise with viewers first, and we will return with a newer and more entertaining fourth season of ‘Strongest Baseball’.
● Below is the full text of the first official statement from Studio C1 and PD Jang Si-won regarding ‘Strongest Baseball’
Studio C1’s statement on JTBC‘s position on “The production company of ’Strongest Baseball‘ has damaged trust by overcharging billions of won”
I’m a little late because I had a PT at Gocheok Sky Dome today. Here is our position on JTBC‘s statement.
On March 11, JTBC, through a statement regarding the new season of ‘Strongest Baseball’, stated the following as grounds for damage to trust in Studio Siwon (C1): ① the production cost of Strongest Baseball was determined based on the production cost for filming one game, but by producing one game in two parts, it appears that the production cost was double-billed; and ② they requested details of the execution of the production cost and supporting evidence in order to confirm whether the production cost was used for other purposes or processed as additional profits for C1, but they did not receive them.
However, this is not only a serious distortion of the facts themselves, but also an unacceptable defamatory suspicion against C1 and PD Jang Si-won.
First, JTBC also generates advertising revenue for each part by dividing one game into two parts and airing them. It is difficult to understand the intention behind JTBC receiving advertising revenue per part while C1 should receive production costs for each game. It’s a typical example of a hypocrite who takes over the other person. It‘s also fundamentally against common sense that the production cost for a broadcast program should be allocated by game, not by the number of episodes.
Second, the production contract between C1 and JTBC does not require post-bill or actual cost settlement of production costs, so ‘excessive billing’ cannot exist structurally. The production cost is determined based on the total amount through prior consultation for each season, and C1 has been handling additional costs for situations that were not considered when determining the production cost, such as additional filming or cancellation, at its own expense. JTBC has never settled these additional costs, and C1 did not request them. This is because it is in accordance with the contract structure between an independent production company and a broadcasting company. For example, during the production cost negotiation process for Season 3 (2024), JTBC requested a total discount, and agreed on the production cost by excluding all amounts, such as the directing fee of PD Jang Si-won, who is a key directing fee for the production cost of Strongest Baseball, so it was decided to be a turn-key contract. However, this groundless statement of position is not only completely different from the existing production contract, but is also an absurd claim that overturns the practices and principles of the Korean broadcasting production industry.
Third, JTBC has not distributed profits from the direct viewing profits and related sales of Strongest Baseball for two years, and is refusing to even provide information on the total amount of profits generated to JTBC in Season 3 (2024). In the production contract for each season, it was agreed that the business profits could be distributed through mutual consultation for ‘additional businesses requiring additional cooperation from C1’, and profit distribution was also carried out in the first season (2022), but as the size of the direct viewing profits increased thereafter, JTBC is refusing to settle the account on the grounds that the distribution ratio is not explicitly stipulated in the production contract. Direct viewing events are not simple additional revenue activities such as retransmission or commercialization of existing filmed materials. This is an event that can only be held through the planning and execution of C1 personnel, and during the event preparation process, JTBC has been pushing forward with an intuitive event by verbally promising to distribute the profits. This is a typical example of exploiting an outsourced production company through changing its words. In addition, JTBC has consistently maintained an absurd one-sided position of “since the ratio is not specified in writing, we have different opinions on the settlement obligation”, thereby interfering with the profit-making activities and settlement of C1, an independent corporation, and as a result, it is presumed that JTBC is understating related expenses and liabilities in its own financial statements. It is questionable whether such an act is possible for a company that discloses an external audit report.
Fourth, since C1 was established on February 25, 2022, it has provided all requested financial information based on the External Audit Act for the external audit of JTBC until the end of 2024. In addition, in order to prepare JTBC’s financial statements, we also received a comprehensive review and confirmation of C1‘s past financial statements, operating status, and business plan for the next five years through an external accounting firm (KPMG Samjeong Accounting Corporation) designated by JTBC until the end of 2023. During that process, no issues like the one in the statement distributed today were raised at all. Nevertheless, JTBC recently unilaterally notified us of its own production plan for The Strongest Baseball and began secretly contacting key staff members such as the main cast, PD, cinematographer, and writer, telling them, “Do not cooperate with the filming of The Strongest Baseball,” and then suddenly made demands that were absolutely unacceptable as a company, such as, “Provide us with contracts with channels other than JTBC, and submit all accounting books and supporting documents,” and are claiming damage to trust on the grounds that we are not complying with these demands. C1 believes that this is a planned move by JTBC to rob the intangible assets, including the network, copyrights, and filming and editing know-how built on trust with the manager and players regarding “Strongest Baseball,” and has secured considerable evidence of this.
Fifth, C1 is not an internal division of JTBC, but an independent stock company in which PD Jang Si-won owns 80% of the issued stock. JTBC’s argument is understood to mean that C1 should not make operating profits from the production costs it received from JTBC, but C1 is neither a subsidiary of JTBC nor a non-profit corporation, but a separate, independent stock company. If JTBC had intended to enter into a production contract with such an actual cost settlement structure, it should have set an unlimited budget in advance and set the transaction terms to go through a post-settlement procedure. If not, it would be common sense to think that it is not a matter that requires issuing a press release at the level of raising trite and tedious suspicions, rather than holding accountable the internal personnel who signed such a contract and, if there are legal issues in the process, filing a lawsuit to demand a refund of the production cost in accordance with the contract.
Sixth, C1’s operating profit constitutes surplus profit to be distributed according to the shareholders‘ percentage of equity, and accordingly, JTBC, a 20% shareholder of C1, is structured to recover part of the profits (expenses for JTBC) generated under the production contract. In fact, although C1 has accumulated considerable distributable profits since its establishment, it has not yet paid out a single won in dividends, taking into account the fact that JTBC’s percentage of equity is only 20%. C1 tried to respect JTBC‘s position as a partner based on the principle of good faith in all aspects.
Despite these circumstances, JTBC obstructed C1’s production activities with the sole purpose of seizing the intellectual property rights related to Strongest Baseball, and finally raised suspicions of ‘excessive charging or misappropriation of production costs’ through a press release today without any basis. I believe that the viewers and fans will fully understand without me having to explain at length the background of these claims.
Strongest Baseball belongs to the viewers and fans.
Thank you. C1
Hong Se-young, Donga.com Reporter projecthong@donga.com
This article is automatically translated using Google AI. If you notice any inaccuracies, please let us know at allkstar@donga.com.
