[Focus] Discussion on 'Major Shareholder Stake Limits' for Virtual Asset Exchanges... Legal Circle "Concerns Over Property Rights Infringement"

As financial authorities review plans to disperse the shareholdings of major shareholders in virtual asset exchanges, controversy over the infringement of property rights is erupting in earnest, primarily within the legal community. While there is sympathy for the regulatory purpose of protecting investors and securing market integrity, some point out that restricting major shareholders' shareholdings as a means to achieve this is a separate issue.

The core of the controversy is whether the 'problems that actually occurred in the market' align with the 'targets of regulation.' In the virtual asset market, controversies have repeatedly surfaced regarding the opacity of listing and delisting processes, poor internal controls, inadequate market surveillance, and fee policies. However, the legal community points out that these problems stem from the exchanges' operational methods and management systems, making it difficult to conclude that they occurred simply because major shareholders held large stakes.

Control of 'Ownership' Rather Than Behavior Regulation... Potential Unconstitutionality Draws Attention

Legal experts explain that when problems arise with specific actions, regulating those actions directly aligns with the principles of the rule of law. For example, if unfair trading occurs, the unfair trading is punished; if internal controls are inadequate, internal control standards are strengthened; and if investors suffer damage, the scope of liability is expanded.

In contrast, forcibly reducing major shareholders' stakes or imposing holding limits is a regulation that targets 'ownership itself' rather than problematic behaviors. In fact, while the Constitution guarantees property rights, it allows for certain restrictions when necessary for public welfare. However, just because restrictions are possible does not mean all regulations are unconditionally permitted. The basic structure of the constitutional 'principle of proportionality' requires satisfying not only the legitimacy of the purpose but also the suitability of the means, minimal infringement, and a balance of legal interests.

The legal community, in particular, sees a high likelihood of constitutional controversy if major shareholders of normally operating companies are retroactively asked to sell their stakes. Existing financial sectors, such as banks and securities firms, also have major shareholder eligibility screening systems, but these are closer to systems that examine factors like legal violations and soundness rather than the size of the stake itself. It is rare, they explain, to mandate forced disposals solely on the grounds of holding a large number of shares.

"Listing Transparency and Stronger Internal Controls First" vs. "Need to Improve Ownership Structure"

Some experts argue that if virtual asset exchanges need to be regulated, behavioral and systemic regulations—such as disclosing the listing review process, strengthening market surveillance functions, expanding obligations to protect customer assets, and establishing conflict-of-interest prevention mechanisms—should be discussed first.

The market expects the debate over "whether it is a priority to directly regulate the areas where problems occurred or to change the ownership structure first" to expand further in the future. Ultimately, this discussion is expected to serve as a testing ground measuring the limits of state intervention between 'investor protection' and 'property rights guarantees,' going beyond a simple reorganization of the governance structure of virtual asset exchanges.

[※ This article was written for the purpose of providing general information and does not encourage support for or opposition to any specific policy. AI was utilized in the writing process of this article.]