Bithumb Prevails in Court: Erroneous Bitcoin Credits Lead to Two Successful Lawsuits

This is a case that highlights the importance of clear rules—especially in an area like crypto, where technology and law can sometimes outpace our understanding of them.
The South Korean exchange Bithumb has won against two lawsuits in which users attempted to retain erroneously credited Bitcoins worth approximately $40 billion. The courts sided with the exchange, and understandably so: no one should be able to simply appropriate Bitcoin just because a mistake occurred.
A Technical Error with Consequences
It all began in November 2020, when an update in the system administration went wrong. Suddenly, Bitcoin credits were issued to hundreds of users who were not entitled to receive them—totaling $1.2 billion. Bithumb quickly noticed the error, asked users to return the funds, and many complied. However, some refused and even took the matter to court to keep the Bitcoin.
They argued that they had sold the Bitcoin in good faith and could not be held responsible for the error. But the courts saw it differently: a technical failure on the part of the provider does not justify the appropriation of someone else’s assets—even if th



e transaction initially appeared legitimate.
A Precedent for the Crypto Industry
This case sheds important light on the crypto industry: where do the boundaries lie between technical failure and legal responsibility? While some exchanges, like Binance, may take a more lenient approach in such cases, Bithumb has taken a firm stance on strict recovery. And the courts have now confirmed this.
For investors and users, this means: trust in the technology, but don’t forget that behind crypto are still people and systems—and they are liable for their mistakes. Following the incident, Bithumb tightened its security measures, showing that the company has learned from the situation.
A Ruling with Far-Reaching Implications
For Bithumb, this is an important affirmation. The exchange can now clearly state: technical errors are not a free pass for unlawful enrichment. At the same time, the question remains whether the affected users will pursue further legal action.
One thing is certain: such cases remind us that while crypto may be revolutionary, it is not above the law. And sometimes, it takes rulings like these to emphasize that point.