All
| TITLE | Uijeongbu District Court Namyangju Branch Decision 2022GaHap50780, dated July 26, 2024: Appeal [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 Company A, which developed a cryptocurrency (MO Token) based on blockchain technology, entered into an agreement with Party B and others engaged in market-making activities on cryptocurrency exchanges with the content, “When Company A lists MO Tokens on the cryptocurrency exchange Foblgate (www.foblgate.com), Party B, etc. shall receive MO Tokens from Company A and engage in market making by trading MO Tokens with funds held by Party B, etc., and the profits generated in the process shall be divided by Company A and Party B, etc. in a fixed ratio,” and in accordance with this agreement, after MO Tokens were listed on Foblgate, a certain quantity of the MO Tokens were transferred to the cryptocurrency account in the name of Party C, as designated by Party B, etc. [This account had been opened by Party C, an Australian national, who completed Foblgate’s KYC (Know Your Customer) verification at the request of Party D, with whom Party C was in a romantic relationship], and when Foblgate restricted the use of the above account, which was used for transactions such as the sale of the MO Tokens and the purchase of other cryptocurrencies, on the grounds that abnormal transactions were detected, Party E, who was transferred the rights and obligations regarding the MO Tokens listed on Foblgate after entering into a claim assignment agreement with Company A, made claims that Party B, etc. deceived Company A without any intention or ability to engage in market making and caused the transfer of the MO Tokens to the account in the name of Party C, and as Party C conspired in or abetted such transaction, Party C is liable to Company A for damages due to joint tort, and that since the transfer of the MO Tokens by Company A was caused by the fraud of Party B, etc., and Party C acquired the MO Tokens without any legal cause, Party C has an obligation to return the unjust enrichment to Company A, and filed an alternative claim against Party C seeking the payment of the amount of the assigned claim for damages due to joint tort or the amount of the assigned claim for the return of unjust enrichment. In such a case, the court dismissed all of the above claims for the reasoning that, in light of the various circumstances, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Party C conspired with Party B, etc. to participate in the tortious act or facilitated their misappropriation, and it was difficult to recognize that Party C had in fact received the profits (settlement funds) in question, and even if Party C were deemed to have received actual benefits, such benefits would fall under the category of illegally caused benefits. | |
