"Of 62 Trillion Won, 700 Million Is Still Unrecovered" Bithumb Seeks Provisional Seizure of Accounts of Users Refusing to Return Funds

According to Financial News, virtual asset exchange Bithumb has taken legal action over the "Bitcoin mispayment" incident that occurred in February. The company has applied for provisional seizure of the accounts of users who are refusing to return the portion that has not yet been recovered.
News1 reported on the 9th that Bithumb has sought provisional seizure against the accounts of users who are refusing to return mispaid Bitcoin worth about 7 billion won. This measure is a procedure that freezes a debtor's assets in advance so they cannot be disposed of arbitrarily, thereby enabling future compulsory execution.
In early February, Bithumb caused the mispayment incident when an employee mistakenly entered "BTC" instead of "won" while processing event prize payouts. The company had planned to pay cash prizes ranging from 2,000 won to 50,000 won, but instead about 620,000 Bitcoins were sent to 695 users. Given that Bitcoin was trading at around 100 million won per coin at the time, the error amounted to roughly 62 trillion won.
Immediately after the incident, Bithumb blocked transactions on the relevant accounts within about 40 minutes and began canceling the erroneous payouts, allowing it to recover most of the mispaid assets. However, some users sold the Bitcoin or transferred it off the exchange before the block, forcing Bithumb to contact them directly and try to persuade them to return the funds.
Even so, Bitcoin equivalent to about 7 billion won remains unreturned. Some users continue to refuse repayment, citing the company's negligence, and Bithumb has responded by seeking provisional seizure of their accounts.
Legal experts say the case is highly likely to be treated as a matter of returning unjust enrichment, which would favor the company. Lee Chan-jin, Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service and attorney, said at a press briefing held three days after the incident, "It is clearly subject to the return of unjust enrichment," adding, "In principle, the original asset must be returned, and if it has been disposed of, my personal view is that those involved could face a disastrous situation."
bng@fnnews.com Kim Hee-sun Reporter