[Alpha Biz= Kim Jisun] SEOUL, April 9, 2026 — Dunamu, the operator of cryptocurrency exchange Upbit, has won a first-instance lawsuit seeking to overturn a partial business suspension order imposed by Korea Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). The court ruled that it was difficult to recognize intent or gross negligence on Dunamu’s part in relation to transactions with unregistered virtual asset service providers (VASPs) that occurred amid regulatory ambiguity.
The Seoul Administrative Court’s 5th Division, presided over by Chief Judge Lee Jung-won, ruled in favor of Dunamu in its lawsuit against the FIU commissioner, seeking cancellation of a partial business suspension order. The court ordered the cancellation of the three-month suspension (March 7 to June 6, 2025) imposed by the FIU on February 25, 2025.
The central issue in the case concerned whether Dunamu was obligated under the Act on Reporting and Use of Certain Financial Transaction Information to block transactions under 1 million won with unregistered VASPs. At the time, transactions exceeding 1 million won were strictly prohibited with unregistered operators, but no clear standards or guidelines existed for transactions below that threshold.
Dunamu stated that it had independently established and operated internal control measures for sub-1 million won transactions. The company required customers to submit written pledges and implemented a virtual asset tracking and analytics system provided by Chainalysis Korea to monitor withdrawal wallet addresses. Transactions were automatically blocked if the system identified counterparties as unregistered operators designated by the FIU, while transactions labeled as “Unknown” were permitted.
The issue arose when some transactions initially classified as “Unknown” were later identified as involving unregistered operators. The FIU reported a total of 44,948 violations across four virtual assets, including Bitcoin, between August 28, 2022, and August 23, 2024, and imposed the partial suspension for violating the prohibition on transactions with unregistered VASPs.
However, the court also pointed to the responsibility of the regulatory authority. “The regulator failed to provide any specific guidance on the concrete measures the plaintiff was required to implement,” the court stated, adding that “it is difficult to recognize intent or gross negligence based solely on the fact that the measures were later deemed insufficient.” The court also took into account that Dunamu had implemented its own control mechanisms to manage such transactions.
The court ultimately concluded that it would be difficult to determine that Dunamu had failed to take necessary measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, ruling that the partial business suspension order was unlawful.
Alphabiz Reporter Kim Jisun(stockmk2020@alphabiz.co.kr)
