This article was displayed on the ChosunBiz RM Report site at 2:45 p.m. on Jun. 1, 2026.
Lee Jeong-hoon, founder of Bithumb and former chair of Bithumb Holdings, also won on appeal in a damages suit worth about 12 billion won related to the "failure to list Bithumb Coin (BXA)" that arose during the 2018 sale of Bithumb equity. The court found it difficult to conclude that Lee's side guaranteed Bithumb's listing of the BXA coin.
According to legal sources on the 1st, the Civil Division 19-3 of the Seoul High Court (presiding judge Son Cheol-woo) on May 20 dismissed the plaintiff's appeal in the damages suit filed by Kim Byung-keon, chair of BK Medical Group, who had sought to acquire Bithumb, against Lee. Following the first trial, the second trial also ruled in Lee's favor.
The case began during the 2018 sale of management control of Bithumb. Kim's side agreed at the time to acquire Bithumb-related shares for $347.54 million from Lee's side. Kim's side argued that the contract was made on the premise that if the BXA coin was listed on Bithumb, they could sell it to raise a significant portion of the acquisition price. In the process, they said they paid about $100 million including the down payment.
However, the BXA coin was not listed on Bithumb. Kim's side also failed to raise the remaining balance, and the acquisition of Bithumb ultimately fell through. Afterward, Kim filed suit in Sep. 2020, saying Lee's side promised the BXA listing but did not keep it. Arguing that the contract was void or subject to cancellation due to fraud, they sought the return of 12 billion won, part of the down payment already paid.
The first trial last year dismissed Kim's claim. The reason was that the contract did not contain any provision imposing a legal obligation to list BXA. The court found that while the contract included expressions to the effect of "making best efforts" and "providing maximum cooperation," there was no clause indicating that Lee's side guaranteed the BXA listing. It also determined there was no explicit clause stating the contract would be terminated if BXA was not listed.
The appellate decision was the same. The second-instance court said, "It cannot be seen that the defendant guaranteed to the plaintiff at the time of each contract that BXA would be listed."
Kim's side argued that Lee's side lacked the intent or ability from the start to list BXA. The court did not accept this. It found it difficult to conclude that Lee's side made no effort at all to pursue the BXA listing, and viewed that external factors, including domestic virtual-asset regulations, also influenced the failure to list. The court dismissed Kim's claim and ordered them to bear the litigation expense.
Lee also faced a criminal trial on the same matter. The charge was fraud for allegedly using the BXA listing as a pretext to obtain the down payment from Kim. However, in Mar. last year the Supreme Court finalized an acquittal. The Supreme Court said there was insufficient evidence to find that Lee guaranteed a BXA listing and that it was difficult to recognize any deceptive act, and therefore there was no problem with the lower court's decision.
If Kim's side does not file a final appeal by Jun. 3, the appellate judgment in this civil case will be finalized as is.