|
[Main Issues and Holdings]
The virtual currency coins of foreign entity Company A were stolen through a hacking incident, and Company A only informed Company B, which operated a virtual currency exchange, of the incident four days after the incident took place. In response, Company B, etc., designated the above coin as a trading caution item then suspended trading support for the coin as well. Company A, etc., then applied for an injunction against Company B, etc., to suspend the enforcement of this measure, arguing that the above decision to suspend support was procedurally and substantively unlawful, and that there was the risk of suffering harm that could not be recovered from. In this case, it is difficult to say that the application for said injunction had sufficiently explained the right to be preserved to a degree that would allow for an injunction to suspend the enforcement of the above suspension decision before a judgment on the merits, and the application also did not sufficiently explain the need for suspending the enforcement of the above suspension decision given that it is difficult to say that Company A had faithfully disclosed important matters regarding the above coin, and that it is difficult to say that Company A clearly explained the cause of the above hacking incident to Company B, etc.
|
