[결정] Application for interim injunction to prevent Wemix delisting ‘dismissed’

WeMade, which published WEMIX, protested against the notice of termination (removal) of Wemix transaction support by exchanging domestic virtual assets and filed a request for an injunction to stop the effect, but the court rejected it. Accordingly, the delisting of Wemics, scheduled for 3 pm on the 8th, was confirmed.

Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 50 (Presiding Judge Song Gyeong-geun)is a transaction made on the 7th by Wemix PTE Ltd, an affiliate of WeMade in Singapore that issues Wemix Coin, against four virtual currency exchanges belonging to the joint digital asset exchange advisory body (DAXA, DAXA ), including Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone , and Korbit Decision to end support Request for injunction to suspend validity(2022 Kahab 21695, 2022 Kahab 21703, 2022 Kahab 21712)decided to ignore it.

The court found that although the exchange side is a private economic entity, it simultaneously performs public interest functions such as promoting the formation of fair prices and transparency of virtual asset transactions, and imposes certain responsibilities for managing the asset market virtual. be a precedent for the opinion. In addition, it is known that a policy is needed to give the exchange side discretion as to whether or not to support transactions to protect investors, and that the judgment of the exchange side needs to be respected unless it is arbitrary.

First of all, the court is said to be of the opinion that the right to stay in the application for a temporary injunction was not sufficiently explained because it was difficult to conclude that the termination of transactional assistance by the exchange party is an abuse of discretion. In particular, the coin’s ‘distribution volume’, which is an issue, is said to be the most important information for investors to make an investment decision due to the nature of the coin, the price of which is inevitably determined by relying on the supply principle and demand, because it is difficult to conceive the concept differently from stocks. In addition, it is known that virtual asset exchanges have no choice but to check the circulation of virtual assets, and if a problem is found in the process, they have pointed out the responsibility to take significant measures along with a request for an explanation in the public interest to protect investors.

In addition, it is known that the decision to delist based on this reason is not flawed because Wemix’s cut of the distribution amount falls under the reason for the termination of transaction support in the listing contract signed with the an exchange. In particular, it is reported that the amount of mortgage loans, which Wemics insists should be excluded from the circulation amount, must be calculated based on the circulation amount because it has no choice but to trade and distribute it in the market. The decision to dismiss also seems to have been influenced by the ongoing error and the part where the situation was reversed even though the exchange asked for an explanation after discovering the violation of the Wemix classification.

As for the part where Wemiss argued that the decision to delist by Daksa’s member companies was an unfair act under the Fair Trading Act, the court agreed to collude because Daksa’s internal decision could not bind all member companies in the absence of legislation on virtual asset regulation . It is reported that it was judged that it could not be viewed as

At the same time, it is known that the exchange side did not believe that the decision to delist this time violates the principle of proportionality or violates the procedure.

In the preliminary injunction hearing held on the 2nd, △Daksa has the authority to make a decision on delisting from Wemix △ whether there is a justifiable reason for the delisting decision △ whether Wemix had enough opportunity to explain itself. both sides.

On the 24th of last month, Daksa announced that it would end support for Wemix transactions, which had a problem with over-distribution disclosure, from 3:00 pm on the 8th. Accordingly, on the 28th of last month, Wemics filed an injunction application against Upbit and Bithumb, and the next day, on the 29th, it also filed an injunction application against the remaining exchanges , Coinone and Korbit.

Some say it’s a battle for leadership between coin companies like Wemix and exchanges like Upbit. This is because concerns were raised about the Daksa system after the events of Luna and Terra.

Wemics argued that the decision to delist was the exchange’s ‘abuse of power’, while exchanges such as Bithumb and Upbit countered, saying, “Wemix admitted to false disclosure and submitted changes to the circulation several times during the process explain.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.