Crypto

Successful Debt Enforcement Case Through Parallel Crypto Asset and Monetary Seizure

Full Grant of the Attachment and Collection Orders

사건 개요

Client Information: Individual / Creditor

Case Details: The client obtained a favorable judgment in a civil lawsuit against the debtor. While there were no issues with the judgment itself, the client encountered significant difficulties at the enforcement stage.

The debtor’s assets were not held in readily identifiable forms such as bank deposits or real estate. Instead, the debtor was presumed to hold assets primarily in cryptocurrency maintained through virtual asset exchanges.

Faced with uncertainty as to whether cryptocurrency could be subject to compulsory enforcement, and whether recovery could realistically be achieved through virtual assets alone, the client sought post-judgment enforcement assistance from Decent Law Firm’s Virtual Asset Practice Group.

디센트 전략

One of the most common misconceptions in crypto-related enforcement is the belief that “if the debtor holds cryptocurrency, it is sufficient to seize only the cryptocurrency.”

In practice, however, recovery through a single enforcement method is often limited due to factors such as the custody structure of virtual assets, the possibility of assets being distributed across multiple exchanges, and fluctuations in account balances over time.

Decent did not treat this matter as a cryptocurrency-only enforcement issue. In order to maximize recovery, we pursued enforcement against both cryptocurrency-related claims and monetary claims simultaneously, without artificially separating or limiting the scope of execution.

결과 및 의의

"Full Grant of the Attachment and Collection Orders"

The court granted both the attachment and collection order over the debtor’s right to claim the return of virtual assets and the attachment and collection order over the debtor’s monetary claims.

As a result, the client secured both cryptocurrency-related claims and monetary claims as enforceable assets, establishing a concrete foundation for subsequent recovery procedures.

This case demonstrates the importance of a broad and integrated enforcement strategy in debt recovery matters involving virtual assets, rather than limiting execution to a single asset category.