'Wemix Relisting' First Legal Battle... "Arbitrary Termination" vs. "Legitimate Delisting"

In the first hearing of a provisional injunction to suspend the delisting of WEMIX, the second-largest domestic virtual asset by market capitalization, Wemade and the Digital Asset Exchange Cooperative (DAXA) engaged in an intense legal battle. Wemade claimed "unilateral contract termination without clear reasons," while DAXA countered that it was a "legitimate decision to protect users." The court decided to determine the injunction by May 30th.

The Civil Affairs 50th Division of the Seoul Central District Court held a hearing on the provisional injunction filed by Wemade against four DAXA-affiliated exchanges including Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax. Both sides drew parallel lines regarding the procedural legitimacy of the joint delisting through DAXA and the disclosure timing of the WEMIX hack.



WEMIX argued that all three delisting reasons proposed by DAXA - inadequate disclosure, non-disclosure of important matters, and loss of coin credibility - were invalid. They particularly emphasized that DAXA's exchange support model guideline did not specify disclosure obligations or timing for hack incidents.

Wemade argued that DAXA was retroactively applying security disclosure obligations from the revised guidelines effective June 1st, and that the WEMIX Foundation had promptly disclosed the hack and implemented market stabilization measures.

Wemade cited filing a criminal complaint on the day of the hack, disclosing within one business day, conducting six additional disclosures, and implementing investor protection buyback measures. They argued that the decision should be seen as unilateral contract termination, as exchanges had entered a support contract where Wemade provided 19.8 billion won in assets.

They emphasized that as the second-largest domestic virtual asset, WEMIX's delisting from domestic exchanges would collapse Wemade's blockchain business and cause massive investor damage, while delisting benefits remain abstract.

DAXA countered that virtual asset hacks fundamentally significantly impact investment decisions, and that they could have moved assets to cold wallets and disclosed within minutes of a hack. They argued that WEMIX continues trading on over 20 overseas exchanges and that delisting does not immediately mean project collapse.

The court requested Wemade to clarify WEMIX's actual ownership by investor representatives and provide detailed hack circumstances. The court plans to conclude the hearing on May 26th and decide on the injunction by May 30th, considering the exchange support termination date of June 2nd.

Kim Seok-hwan, WEMIX Foundation representative, stated that DAXA's grounds lack objectivity and promised to provide comprehensive explanatory materials.

Reporter Kim Jung-woo

woo@sedaily.com