Supreme Court Confirms Former CEO Kim Ho-kwang’s Final Victory in Cyworld Blockchain Exclusivity Dispute

2026-02-19(목) 08:02
본문이미지

The Supreme Court has ultimately ruled in favor of former Cyworld CEO Kim Ho-kwang in a legal dispute over blockchain business rights related to the Cyworld revival project.

The First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Ma Yong-ju) announced that it upheld the lower court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff in an appeal filed by Betalabs Co., Ltd. (CEO Kim Ho-kwang) against Cyworld Z Co., Ltd. The lawsuit sought confirmation of contractual status and the return of unjust enrichment.

With this ruling, former CEO Kim secured a final victory at the Supreme Court approximately four years after filing the lawsuit in 2022. The court also stated that the defendant’s claim of a simultaneous performance defense could not be accepted and recognized the obligation to restore and return the value of the virtual assets received.

Through this decision, Kim has secured business legitimacy following nearly four years of legal proceedings since initiating the lawsuit in 2022. Previously, lower courts ruled that Cyworld Z must return approximately 13.7 billion won in unjust enrichment to Betalabs.

Meanwhile, Kim’s side filed for a provisional seizure of the Cyworld domain with the Seoul Central District Court, arguing that the transfer of key assets—including the company’s domain and business rights—to a third party was carried out without proper approval at a shareholders’ meeting. A provisional seizure order has since been granted.

Kim Ho-kwang stated, “Through this Supreme Court ruling, we will pursue legal responsibility to the end in order to recover funds that were unlawfully diverted and restore our damaged reputation.”

Cyworld, once South Korea’s leading social networking service (SNS) with 35 million registered users at its peak in 2011, has since suspended its services due to legal disputes and financial difficulties.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice.

239
14