Court Blocks Stock Delisting Due to 'Procedural Violations'... Will It Apply to Coins? "It's Just Talk Until the Basic Law Comes Out"

The court grants injunction for Juyun Tech and KM Pharmaceutical

"Difficult to apply to the termination of coin trading support"

"If the Basic Law is enacted, the review may become stricter"

[Block Media Reporter Oh Su-hwan] With the court intervening in the Korea Exchange's decision to delist stocks due to insufficient market capitalization, the question arises whether this ruling could also impact disputes over the termination of digital asset trading support. The court's focus on the procedural legitimacy of applying the delisting criteria rather than the criteria itself suggests a need to compare the legal standards of the two markets.

Experts believe that the legal basis and regulatory levels of the two markets differ, making it difficult to apply this decision directly. It is analyzed that if a Digital Asset Basic Law is enacted, establishing legal grounds and procedures for terminating trading support, the court's review standards may become even stricter.

Court Halts Delisting Procedures... Will It Affect the Coin Market?

According to legal circles on the 16th, the Seoul Southern District Court granted an injunction on the 2nd for Juyun Tech and KM Pharmaceutical against the Korea Exchange's delisting decision.

The Korea Exchange raised the market capitalization threshold for KOSDAQ delisting from 4 billion KRW to 15 billion KRW in January this year, and then to 20 billion KRW in July. The 20 billion KRW standard, originally set to take effect in January 2027, was moved up by six months.

The court pointed out procedural issues in applying the increased market capitalization standard itself. It determined that the companies were not given sufficient opportunities for opinion statements and objections, and there was insufficient justification for strengthening recovery requirements to avoid delisting or for advancing the implementation timeline.

There have also been cases where the court intervened in decisions to terminate trading support in the digital asset market.

Cent obtained an injunction against Bithumb's decision to terminate trading support, effective July 2024. At that time, the court ruled that Bithumb had not sufficiently submitted claims and materials to support the reasons for terminating trading support.

However, in October of the same year, the injunction was canceled during the objection process, leading to the eventual termination of Cent's trading support. The initial injunction did not guarantee the final maintenance of the listing.

In the past, WEMIX also filed for an injunction to prevent the termination of trading support, but it was repeatedly dismissed by the court. In 2022, issues arose from discrepancies between the distribution plan and actual distribution volume, as well as errors in supporting documents that damaged credibility. In 2025, the main issues were delays in disclosing hacking incidents and a lack of evidence regarding the causes of the incidents.

Thus, in disputes over the termination of digital asset trading support, the validity of the reasons for delisting presented by exchanges and the content of the issuer's evidence have influenced court judgments.

Stocks Based on Law... Coins Centered on Self-Regulation

In this case involving the Korea Exchange, the procedural legitimacy of applying the delisting criteria has become a point of contention, raising expectations that it may also influence future disputes over the termination of digital asset trading support.

In particular, issuers opposing the exchange's delisting decisions may use this court ruling to contest procedural legitimacy.

However, experts believe that such expectations are unlikely to lead to actual court judgments. This is because the legal nature and regulatory levels of stocks and digital assets differ, making it impossible to directly apply this decision to cases of terminating digital asset trading support.

Attorney Jeong Seung-man from the law firm Block explained, "Stock delisting is conducted according to the Capital Markets Act and detailed regulations of the Korea Exchange, so the court strictly assesses compliance with procedures. In contrast, the termination of digital asset trading support is closer to self-regulation by the exchange and private contracts, making it difficult to apply the same legal standards."

The Korea Exchange's delisting regulations are based on the Capital Markets Act, with specific formal and substantive review criteria and objection procedures established. Digital asset exchanges decide on the termination of trading support based on self-regulation by the Digital Asset Exchange Joint Council (DAXA) and each exchange's trading support policies.

The review criteria also differ. In the stock market, financial soundness and audit opinions are crucial in evaluating a company's management and financial status. In the digital asset market, factors such as circulation volume, project operation status, and smart contract security issues play significant roles in judgment.

Attorney Jeong stated, "The Korea Exchange's delisting regulations are based on the Capital Markets Act, so while they are self-regulatory, the court assesses them with a level of strictness comparable to legal statutes. In contrast, the criteria for terminating trading support at digital asset exchanges are relatively simplified, and the procedures are not as detailed as those in the stock market."

Differences also appear in the evidence submission process. In the stock market, external verification materials such as financial statements and audit reports are utilized, and the objection procedures are specifically regulated. Digital asset exchanges primarily require evidence regarding project operation status or business plans, making the materials and review procedures relatively straightforward.

For this reason, it is difficult for the court to judge that the self-regulatory provisions of digital asset exchanges are not sufficiently specific or that certain procedures were not followed as violations comparable to those in the Korea Exchange case.

Basic Law Enactment as a Variable... Possibility of Strengthening Delisting Procedure Reviews

However, if a Digital Asset Basic Law is enacted in the future, establishing legal grounds for terminating trading support, the situation may change.

Currently, the termination of digital asset trading support is strongly determined by the exchange's own regulations and contractual relationships. However, if the law specifically defines the requirements and procedures for terminating trading support, the exchanges' judgments can also be reviewed based on clearer legal standards.

In particular, whether the reasons for terminating trading support were sufficiently communicated in advance, whether the issuer was given an opportunity to provide evidence, and whether the exchange consistently applied its own regulations may become more critical in legal disputes.

Attorney Jeong stated, "At this stage, it is difficult to apply the Korea Exchange's decision directly to disputes over the termination of digital asset trading support, but it can be used as a reference. If a Digital Asset Basic Law is enacted in the future, establishing legal grounds for terminating trading support, it will be possible to argue that the procedural legitimacy of exchanges should be examined more strictly based on this case."

Comments 0

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.