How Should the Bithumb Bitcoin Erroneous Transfer Incident Be Viewed Legally?
Overview of the Incident
A single input error resulted in an erroneous transfer worth approximately KRW 60 trillion.
On February 6, 2026, an unprecedented incident occurred at Bithumb.
Instead of distributing a promotional reward of KRW 2,000, a staff member mistakenly entered the unit incorrectly and transferred 2,000 Bitcoin.
As a result, approximately KRW 196 billion per recipient was credited, and some of the Bitcoin was immediately sold on the market, causing a temporary sharp decline in prices.
Although the incident originated from a system error, its impact extended far beyond an internal operational mistake and affected the broader market.
Key Legal Issues
The core legal issue in the Bithumb Bitcoin erroneous transfer incident lies in distinguishing criminal liability from civil liability.
Many initially consider whether embezzlement charges could apply. However, according to the Supreme Court decision dated December 16, 2021 (2020Do9789), virtual assets are not considered “property” under the Criminal Act but rather “property-based interests.”
The Court held that even if a person who receives mistakenly transferred virtual assets uses or disposes of them at their own discretion, it is difficult to conclude that such a person occupies a position of managing another’s affairs based on a fiduciary relationship. Accordingly, the offense of breach of trust does not apply.
Therefore, merely receiving and using or disposing of virtual assets transferred by mistake does not easily lead to criminal punishment such as embezzlement or breach of trust under the current criminal law framework.
However, the legal analysis does not end there.
Assets acquired through the erroneous Bitcoin transfer constitute gains obtained without legal cause, and thus may be evaluated as unjust enrichment under the Civil Act.
In such cases, the recipient bears an obligation to return the unjust enrichment regardless of intent or negligence.
Even if part of the assets has already been disposed of, a recipient acting in bad faith must return the received benefits with interest and compensate for any resulting damages (Article 748(2) of the Civil Act).
Since the obligation to return unjust enrichment does not have a fixed due date, the recipient becomes liable for delay damages from the time a demand for return is made (Article 387(2) of the Civil Act).
Attorney’s Opinion
“Although this incident originated from a system error, it will ultimately be resolved through restoration.
Bithumb has sufficient recovery capabilities, and full recovery is legally possible.
If any recipients are currently in discussions with Bithumb after receiving the erroneously transferred assets, returning them would be the prudent course of action to avoid unnecessary legal disputes.
At this point, a rational resolution is necessary to preserve the integrity of the market.”
Conclusion
The outcome of this incident ultimately depends on the legal perspective applied.
Decent Law Firm provides comprehensive legal analysis for recipients and related parties involved in large-scale virtual asset incidents such as the Bithumb Bitcoin erroneous transfer, including civil return procedures, negotiation processes, and dispute response strategies.
By analyzing legal risks associated with different return methods, structuring negotiations with counterparties, and proposing response strategies to minimize additional damages, we aim to prevent disputes from escalating into prolonged litigation and to facilitate rational resolutions between the parties.
The Bithumb Bitcoin erroneous transfer incident demonstrates how a technical mistake can quickly evolve into a serious legal issue.
Only calm legal judgment and swift, well-informed responses can restore trust in the market.
If you are a party with interests at stake in connection with the Bithumb Bitcoin erroneous transfer, a rational decision based on legal standards—rather than emotional judgment—is essential.
