-
BlogsTax Obligations for Domestic Virtual Asset Trading
Currently, there is no explicit legal basis for taxing income from virtual asset trading under the current tax laws in South Korea. As a result, no taxation is imposed. Courts have also weighed in on this matter with rulings that clarify the legal stance. Seoul Administrative Court Ruling The Seoul Administrative Court ruled: "Under the current tax laws, income from virtual asset trading by individuals (residents and non-residents) and foreign corporations is not listed as taxable income under the Income Tax Act and is therefore not subject to taxation." The court provided the following rationale for its decision: Virtual Assets as Non-Tangible Domestic Assets Virtual assets do not qualify as "domestic assets other than real estate" under the former Income Tax Act (Article 119, Paragraph 12, Subparagraph (m)). As virtual assets are stored and maintained across a global network of computers connected through blockchain, they cannot be considered assets located within Korea. Exclusion from Economic Benefits Clause Income from virtual asset transactions does not meet the criteria for "economic benefits derived from assets located within Korea or similar income" under the same statute (Subparagraph (k)). Principle of Tax Legality Under the principle of legality in tax law, tax regulations must be strictly interpreted as written without expansion or analogy unless special circumstances justify otherwise. Enumerative Tax System The Income Tax Act employs an enumerative system, meaning only income explicitly listed in the law can be taxed. Unlisted income remains untaxed. Planned Taxation of Virtual Asset Trading Income The South Korean government plans to implement taxation on virtual asset trading income starting January 1, 2025. Key Provisions of the Revised Tax Laws Income Classification: Revised Income Tax Act (Article 21, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 27) categorizes "income from the transfer or lending of virtual assets" as other income. Source of Income: Revised Income Tax Act (Article 119, Paragraph 12, Subparagraph (n)) designates this income as domestic source income for non-residents. Withholding Tax Rates: Revised Income Tax Act (Article 156, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 8, Clause (b)) specifies withholding tax rates for virtual asset trading income, differentiating cases based on whether the acquisition cost is verifiable. Corporate Tax Inclusion: Revised Corporate Tax Act (Article 93, Paragraph 10, Subparagraph (k)) includes virtual asset income as domestic source income for foreign corporations. Implementation Timeline Initially scheduled for January 1, 2022, the enforcement was delayed twice and is now set to commence on January 1, 2025. The taxation will apply to transfers or lending of virtual assets occurring after this date. However, there remains a possibility of further postponement. Current and Future Taxation Implications As of now, there is no tax obligation for income generated from virtual asset trading due to the lack of explicit legal grounds. However, once the revised laws come into effect on January 1, 2025, tax obligations will likely arise. Monitoring and Considerations Tax regulations and their interpretation may evolve. Therefore, continuous monitoring is essential. Specific issues, such as the determination of acquisition costs, handling of transactions through foreign exchanges, and taxation of various virtual asset transaction forms (e.g., DeFi, NFTs), are expected to be clarified before the tax implementation. Stakeholders should stay informed on these developments.
2024-09-14 X (Twitter) -
Blogs
Claim for Damages Against a Domestic Cryptocurrency Exchange
If a cryptocurrency exchange failed to suspend transactions or halt trading despite being informed of a hack involving the issuing foundation of a listed token, resulting in investor losses, what liabilities could the exchange face? Breach of Duty of Care Cryptocurrency exchanges have a duty to protect investors by taking appropriate measures during incidents such as hacking. If an exchange was aware of a hacking incident but failed to suspend trading, this could be considered a breach of its duty of care. Relevant precedents also support this viewpoint. Breach of Contract If an exchange promised to replace an affected token with a new token at a 1:1 ratio but failed to fulfill this commitment, resulting in significant losses for token holders, the exchange may be held liable for breaching its contractual obligations. Unlawful Acts and Liability for Damages Exchanges are obligated to take proper measures to protect investors. If they neglect these responsibilities, their actions could constitute an unlawful act, making them liable for damages under applicable laws. Korean cryptocurrency exchanges are expected to prioritize investor protection. Failure to meet this standard could lead to legal claims for compensation.
2024-09-13 X (Twitter) -
Blogs
Risks of Domestic Cryptocurrency OTC Transactions
Definition of Cryptocurrency OTC Transactions Cryptocurrency OTC (Over-the-Counter) transactions involve the exchange of fiat currency, such as Korean won (KRW), into USDT (Tether) on a continuous, repetitive, and profit-driven basis. How It Works An OTC broker receives requests from specific organizations and facilitates transactions by: Receiving fiat currency (KRW) from individual customers into their account. Depositing the equivalent USDT from their holdings into the customer’s cryptocurrency exchange account as designated by the organization. Charging a commission fee, typically around 5% of the transaction amount. Violation of the Specific Financial Information Act (Special Act) Cryptocurrency OTC operators may be at risk of violating the Specific Financial Information Act (Special Act) in South Korea. If a business engages in repeated brokerage of cryptocurrency transactions for profit without proper registration, it constitutes a violation of the Special Act. The risks escalate significantly if the transactions involve illicit funds, such as those related to phishing schemes, drug money, or gambling proceeds. Special Act Article 7(1): Any business operating cryptocurrency transactions must register with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). Special Act Article 17(1): Failure to comply may result in imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million KRW. Legal Precedent and Penalties Recent court rulings in South Korea have affirmed that individuals engaging in continuous, repetitive, and profit-driven cryptocurrency brokerage are classified as Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) under the Special Act. In a notable case, the court imposed a 1 year and 6 months prison sentence based on the frequency and scale of transactions. This decision underscores the gravity of conducting cryptocurrency brokerage without proper registration. Key Takeaways Businesses conducting cryptocurrency transactions as a commercial activity must register with the Financial Intelligence Unit to comply with the Special Act. Violations can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment and fines. Given the potential misuse of cryptocurrencies in criminal activities such as phishing and money laundering, stricter regulatory measures are necessary to ensure compliance and safeguard the financial system.
2024-09-12 X (Twitter) -
Blogs
Supreme Court Ruling: Legal Characteristics and Specificity of Virtual Assets in South Korea
The Supreme Court of South Korea has defined virtual assets as "digital representations of economic value that are not controlled by the state but are granted value through blockchain or other encrypted distributed ledgers, qualifying as property benefits" (referencing Supreme Court Decision 2021Do9855, November 11, 2021). The Court emphasized the distinct characteristics of virtual assets, such as the ability to verify only the addresses of electronic wallets without identifying the user's personal information, and the distributed recording of transaction histories, which set them apart from traditional assets. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that virtual assets are not subject to the same level of regulation as legal tender and involve inherent risks in transactions. Consequently, the Court concluded that virtual assets do not warrant the same level of legal protection as legal tender under criminal law.
2024-09-10 X (Twitter) -
Blogs HOT
The Need to Allow Virtual Asset Trading for Corporations and Foreigners
Current Situation of Virtual Asset Trading in Korea In Korea, virtual asset trading requires the use of real-name accounts linked to banks, following Know Your Customer (KYC) verification. Customers must deposit Korean won (KRW) into these accounts to trade virtual assets on exchanges. However, the current system imposes significant restrictions: Only one bank can be linked to a single exchange, preventing customers from using other banks for KRW deposits and withdrawals. Corporations and foreigners are prohibited from opening accounts on virtual asset exchanges, even though they can open bank accounts. This restriction is guided by financial authority policies but lacks clear legal justification. Legal Framework Supporting Corporate and Foreigner Accounts Under Korea's Act on Reporting and Use of Specified Financial Transaction Information (Specific Financial Information Act): Articles 5-2 (Customer Due Diligence) and 5-3 (Information Provision Obligations) presuppose that corporations and foreigners can open accounts for virtual asset transactions. Virtual asset service providers (VASPs) are classified as "financial institutions," but there is no legal basis for excluding corporations and foreign customers from opening accounts. This disparity between legal provisions and financial authority guidelines has created a practical bottleneck for businesses operating in Korea’s globally significant virtual asset market. Implications of the Ban Practical Challenges for Businesses Korean companies engaged in global virtual asset projects require corporate accounts for operational purposes. Due to the prohibition, many corporations manage virtual asset funds through personal accounts of representatives or financial officers. This practice: Blurs the distinction between personal and corporate funds. Increases the risk of embezzlement and other legal liabilities within the organization. Absence of Legal Justification While the Specific Financial Information Act supports the inclusion of corporations and foreigners as virtual asset customers, the prohibition by financial authorities: Lacks a clear legal foundation. Contradicts the intent of existing regulations designed to enhance transparency and compliance. Potential Negative Outcomes The ban drives corporations to seek alternative, less transparent methods of managing virtual assets. By not addressing the issues arising from this prohibition, financial authorities risk encouraging greater illegal activity, such as money laundering, rather than mitigating it. Recommendations Policy Revision Instead of an outright prohibition, financial authorities should adopt policies that address specific concerns, such as anti-money laundering (AML) and investor protection. Strengthen compliance requirements for corporate and foreign accounts rather than banning them altogether. Clear Regulatory Guidelines Establish transparent and consistent rules for corporations and foreigners wishing to engage in virtual asset trading. Enhanced Monitoring and Reporting Implement robust monitoring mechanisms to prevent misuse while ensuring legitimate corporate and foreign users can access virtual asset markets. Conclusion Banning corporate and foreign accounts for virtual asset trading does not address the root causes of potential risks and instead creates new problems, including internal legal liabilities and financial inefficiencies. Korea’s global role in the virtual asset market demands proactive and legally grounded solutions that balance compliance with economic innovation. The focus should shift from prohibition to regulation, ensuring the market's integrity while enabling fair access for all participants.
2024-06-19 X (Twitter) -
Blogs
Validity of Share Nominee Trust Agreements for Startups
What is a Share Nominee Trust Agreement? A share nominee trust agreement is a contract between the actual shareholder (trustor) and the nominal shareholder (trustee), where the external shareholding structure differs from the internal shareholding arrangement. Why Are Share Nominee Trust Agreements Created? Legal Restrictions: When ownership of shares is prohibited by law or other regulations. Privacy Reasons: To conceal share ownership for practical purposes. Industry Practices: To avoid potential management disputes by consolidating shares under one name while actual ownership is divided among multiple stakeholders. Are Share Nominee Trust Agreements Illegal? No, such agreements are not inherently illegal. Contracts are governed by the principle of freedom of contract, and there are no specific provisions penalizing share nominee trust agreements under the law. Are Share Nominee Trust Agreements Valid? The answer depends on the perspective: Internal Relationship (Trustor vs. Trustee): The agreement is valid. The trustee is bound by the contractual obligations outlined in the agreement, and the trustor can hold the trustee accountable for breaches. External Relationship (Trustee vs. Company): According to the Supreme Court, only the shareholder listed in the company’s shareholder registry is considered the legitimate shareholder. This means the nominee is recognized as the official shareholder in dealings with the company. Importance of a Well-Drafted Share Nominee Trust Agreement For startups, situations may arise where equity is divided among stakeholders but listed under the name of the founder or another nominee. In such cases, the drafting of the share nominee trust agreement is critical. The agreement must clearly define the rights and responsibilities of each party to avoid potential disputes. Key Provisions to Include in a Share Nominee Trust Agreement Clear Identification of Parties: Clearly define the trustor and trustee. Transfer Restrictions: Specify limitations on the transfer of shares. Shareholder Registry: Include clauses regarding the nominee’s entry in the shareholder registry. Liability and Damages: Outline provisions for compensation in the event of a breach. Termination of Agreement: Define the conditions and procedures for contract termination. Practical Note: The effectiveness of the agreement depends on its substantive content rather than its title or formal structure. Each provision must be carefully reviewed for legal enforceability. Relevant Case Law Supreme Court Decision 2013. 2. 14. (2011Da109708) Supreme Court En Banc Decision 2017. 3. 23. (2015Da248342) These rulings underscore the importance of properly drafted agreements and the distinction between internal and external validity in share nominee trust arrangements.
2024-06-17 X (Twitter)
