|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
This case concerns A, the operator of a virtual asset exchange website, which was requested to support the trading of the virtual asset “Pixel” issued by B, a foreign corporation, and decided to list Pixel after conducting a review. Upon discovering that the total issuance volume of Pixel in circulation contradicted the disclosed circulation plan for Pixel, A designated Pixel as a cautionary trading item and subsequently delisted it to terminate trading support. Plaintiffs such as C, who traded Pixel on the said virtual asset exchange as registered members, sought compensation for damages from A, claiming that they have suffered losses due to the increased circulation of Pixel, which violated the disclosed circulation plan. However, considering various circumstances, A cannot be regarded as having breached its obligation to protect investors in relation to the listing, post-listing management, or delisting of Pixel. Therefore, A’s nonperformance or tort liability cannot be recognized.
|
