Under the rule, courts can issue immediate attachment orders against those withdrawal claims and bar the debtor from moving the assets. Custodians must disclose the debtor’s holdings and claims within one week of a court order.
The second category is self-custodied crypto, meaning coins a person controls through their own private keys rather than through a platform. The rule covers these holdings too, though enforcement here is a different animal.
How seized crypto becomes cash
Rule No. 3280 gives courts two routes. Assets can be transferred directly to the creditor at a value set by the court, or they can be sold through licensed virtual asset service providers.
Valuation can rest on market values or on court-approved figures. That flexibility is useful for a class of assets whose price can swing sharply between a hearing and a sale.
The rule also introduces provisional measures. Courts can freeze a debtor’s crypto before a final judgment is handed down, so the assets don’t vanish while the case is still being argued.
How South Korean courts got here
In 2018, the Supreme Court recognized Bitcoin as an intangible asset with property value, opening the door for courts to treat crypto as something that can be seized to cover unpaid debts.
A December 2025 court ruling then upheld the seizure of Bitcoin under the Criminal Procedure Act. That decision dealt with the criminal side of the ledger.
Rule No. 3280 extends structured procedure to civil debt enforcement. The research behind the rule points to a rising number of crypto-related civil disputes as the pressure that made a formal framework necessary.
What this means for creditors, exchanges, and holders
For creditors, the biggest change is predictability. A lender or business owed money now has a defined path to reach crypto held on a domestic exchange, with a disclosure deadline and a sale mechanism attached.
For exchanges such as Upbit and Bithumb, the rule formalizes a compliance role. They are now explicitly part of the enforcement chain, expected to report holdings and claims and to honor transfer bans when a court order arrives.
The more interesting tension sits with self-custody. The rule covers privately held crypto, but the practical problem hasn’t gone away: whoever controls the private key controls the coins. A court can order an exchange to freeze an account, but ordering a hardware wallet to cooperate is a harder sell.
The provisional freeze measures look designed partly to close that escape hatch early in a dispute, though they work best when the assets are somewhere a court can reach.
The date to watch is November 1, 2026, when the rule takes effect.
