Cha&Kwon Law Offices won the case where the client had lent ETH (Ethereum) to acquaintances but could not have it returned.

In this case, both the agreement and memorandum were well-written, but the debtors took advantage of the fact that the agreement was missing signatures. They claimed that the agreement is invalid since there was a reciprocal agreement to pay in substitutes, thus refusing to return ETH. The debtors also took advantage of the fact that it is difficult to verify the title holder of virtual asset personal wallets and denied having borrowed ETH.

Cha&Kwon Law Offices requested chat records and transmission details of before/ after lending ETH and easily proved lending history. Moreover, Cha&Kwon carefully examined the fact relations of the defendants’ claim of payment in substitute and  proved that the contract was actually an agreement to additionally pay the rental fee of lent ETH.

The court accepted our claim and ordered a return of all the claimed amount as soon as possible.

Because the price of virtual asset changes real time, appropriate legal advice and correspondence plans from a specialist is crucial to a receive a verdict most advantageous to the client.