Securing Housing Deposits in South Korea: A Multi-faceted Approach to Fraud Prevention and Legal Protection (2025)

Executive Summary

• This report addresses the escalating issue of Jeonse (lump-sum deposit) fraud in South Korea, which has seen a significant increase in incidents and substantial monetary damages between 2023 and 2025. With officially recognized victims surpassing 30, 000 and total losses nearing 9 trillion won, the vulnerabilities within the Jeonse system necessitate a comprehensive strategy for deposit protection.

• The analysis reveals that despite amendments to the Housing Lease Protection Act, legal loopholes persist, particularly concerning 선순위 근저당권 (prior secured claims) that override tenant claims. The report advocates for a multi-faceted approach integrating pre-contract due diligence, strategic use of insurance products like HUG and HF guarantees, and proactive engagement with government support programs and technological tools such as the 안심전세앱. By empowering tenants with knowledge and actionable steps, this report provides a roadmap for navigating the complexities of the Jeonse system and minimizing deposit loss risks.

Introduction

• The Jeonse system, a unique feature of South Korea's housing market, has long been a cornerstone of residential stability. However, recent years have witnessed a disturbing rise in Jeonse deposit fraud, leaving countless tenants financially vulnerable. With losses amounting to billions of won and the number of victims steadily increasing, the need for robust protection measures has never been more critical.

• This report delves into the current state of Jeonse deposit fraud, diagnosing the underlying causes and legal vulnerabilities that contribute to its prevalence. It examines the effectiveness of existing legal frameworks, analyzes available insurance products, and explores the potential of government-supported technological tools in mitigating the risks associated with Jeonse contracts.

• The purpose of this report is to provide tenants with a comprehensive and actionable guide to securing their housing deposits. It offers a step-by-step approach, from pre-contract due diligence to post-contract legal protections, empowering tenants to make informed decisions and navigate the complexities of the Jeonse system. The report is structured to provide immediate value, offering key insights and practical recommendations that can be implemented even when read independently.

3. 전세보증금 보전의 현황과 문제점: 사기 및 법적 사각지대 진단

• 3-1. 전세보증금 사기의 증가와 피해 규모

• This subsection initiates the report by diagnosing the current state of Jeonse deposit fraud and its associated problems. It quantitatively analyzes the increasing trend of fraud incidents and qualitatively categorizes them by type, thereby setting the stage for subsequent discussions on preventive measures and legal remedies.

• The landscape of Jeonse deposit fraud in South Korea has witnessed a concerning surge between 2023 and 2025, characterized by escalating incident numbers and substantial monetary damages. Understanding the temporal dynamics of this trend is crucial for informing effective intervention strategies. Preliminary data indicates a steep increase in reported fraud cases, necessitating a detailed quantitative analysis to accurately gauge the extent of the crisis.

• To visualize the escalating magnitude of Jeonse fraud, a cumulative damage curve can be constructed using annual data on reported cases and associated financial losses. This curve would depict the total monetary damage inflicted by fraud from 2023 through 2025, providing a clear illustration of the accelerating impact. The analysis should incorporate data from official government sources, such as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MOLIT), and housing-related organizations like the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation (HUG), to ensure data reliability and comprehensiveness. Specifically, the HUG's data on Jeonse deposit accident amounts would be vital for compiling total fraud-related losses.

• Several recent news articles underscore the urgency of this situation. For instance, a June 2025 report highlighted that the number of officially recognized Jeonse fraud victims had surpassed 30, 000, with the majority concentrated in the 수도권 area (ref_idx 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129). Further, news articles from early 2025 indicated that the total losses from these incidents amounted to approximately 9 trillion won over two years, leading to significant financial strain on public entities like HUG (ref_idx 219).

• The strategic implication of this trend is that preventative measures and victim support systems must adapt to the rapid increase in fraud. The observed escalation necessitates enhanced enforcement of existing regulations, increased public awareness campaigns, and innovative solutions to mitigate financial risks for tenants. Additionally, policymakers should consider reforms to the Jeonse system itself, addressing its inherent vulnerabilities to fraud.

• To effectively combat Jeonse fraud, it is recommended that authorities establish real-time monitoring systems that track the frequency and scale of fraudulent activities. Deploying advanced analytics to identify emerging fraud patterns and high-risk areas is crucial. These insights can then be used to guide targeted interventions and resource allocation, ensuring that support reaches those most in need.

• A crucial step in addressing Jeonse deposit fraud is to understand the various types of scams perpetrated and their underlying mechanisms. These schemes exploit vulnerabilities within the Jeonse system and often operate within the grey areas of existing laws. By categorizing and analyzing prevalent fraud types, it becomes possible to identify specific legal loopholes and regulatory weaknesses that need to be addressed.

• Three prominent types of Jeonse fraud include 'Gap Investment' schemes, 'Kkangtong Jeonse' (underwater Jeonse) scams, and contract violations. Gap investment schemes involve purchasing properties with minimal equity, relying on Jeonse deposits to cover the bulk of the purchase price. These schemes become fraudulent when property values decline, leaving landlords unable to return deposits. Kkangtong Jeonse scams occur when the combined mortgage and Jeonse deposit exceed the property's market value, creating a high risk of deposit loss for tenants. Contract violations encompass a range of fraudulent behaviors, such as misrepresentation of property ownership, undisclosed prior debts, or failure to maintain the property as agreed.

• Recent cases illustrate the devastating impact of these scams. For instance, a notable case in 전북 익산 involved exploiting young, first-time renters with Kkangtong Jeonse schemes, accumulating billions of won in illicit gains (ref_idx 15). Similarly, the surge in fraudulent activities has prompted increased scrutiny of real estate transactions, with particular attention to properties with high loan-to-value (LTV) ratios and those involving multiple properties owned by a single landlord (ref_idx 325, 332).

• The strategic implication is that legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms must be tailored to target each specific fraud type. Addressing Gap Investment schemes requires stricter regulations on mortgage lending and enhanced monitoring of property transactions. Combating Kkangtong Jeonse scams necessitates greater transparency in property valuation and stronger consumer protections for tenants. Tackling contract violations calls for improved enforcement of rental agreements and more robust penalties for fraudulent landlords.

• Recommendations include implementing a standardized due diligence process for tenants, providing access to comprehensive property information, and establishing a specialized task force to investigate and prosecute Jeonse fraud cases. These efforts should be complemented by ongoing public awareness campaigns to educate tenants about common scam tactics and empower them to make informed decisions. Furthermore, it is essential to revisit and amend relevant laws and regulations to close loopholes exploited by fraudsters, ensuring that both tenants and responsible landlords are protected.

• Having established the current state and characteristics of Jeonse deposit fraud, the report will now shift its focus to preventative strategies, specifically examining frameworks for verifying landlord and property information before entering into a lease agreement.

• 3-2. 법적·제도적 보호 사각지대

• This subsection critically examines the existing legal and institutional frameworks surrounding Jeonse deposits, highlighting the gaps and limitations that contribute to deposit loss despite legislative efforts. It specifically assesses the practical implications of recent amendments to the Housing Lease Protection Act and identifies structural issues that continue to undermine tenant security.

• Despite amendments to Article 13 of the Housing Lease Protection Act in May 2023, significant legal protection gaps persist, leaving tenants vulnerable to deposit loss. The revisions aimed to enhance tenants' ability to secure their priority repayment rights by clarifying the requirements for obtaining '대항력' (right of occupancy) and '우선변제권' (priority repayment right). However, the core issue remains: 선순위 근저당권 (prior secured claims) continue to override tenant claims, rendering these legal protections insufficient in many real-world scenarios.

• The effectiveness of the amended Housing Lease Protection Act is undermined by the fact that the priority repayment right is determined by the date of 입주일 (move-in date), 전입신고일 (residency registration date), and 확정일자 (fixed date stamp) – whichever is latest. This creates a temporal vulnerability where pre-existing mortgages or secured debts take precedence over the tenant's deposit, regardless of the tenant's compliance with the law. Landlords often exploit this by securing loans against the property before the tenant officially establishes their priority repayment rights.

• Several legal precedents underscore this limitation. A recent case highlighted by 중부일보 (ref_idx 10) illustrates how a 후순위임차인 (subsequent tenant) loses their 임차권 (lease rights) if the property is 경매 (auctioned) due to 선순위저당권 (prior mortgage), even if the tenant has 대항력. In such instances, the tenant can only recover their 보증금 (deposit) through 배당 (distribution) – a process where they often receive only a fraction of their original deposit or nothing at all. This creates a '보증금 사각지대' (deposit blind spot) where tenants, despite fulfilling legal obligations, are exposed to substantial financial risk.

• The strategic implication of these protection gaps is that reliance solely on the Housing Lease Protection Act is insufficient for securing Jeonse deposits. The interplay between 선순위 근저당권 and the timing of 대항력 and 우선변제권 establishment creates a structural disadvantage for tenants. This necessitates a multi-faceted approach that combines legal due diligence, insurance products, and government support to mitigate the risks effectively.

• To address this, it is recommended that policymakers consider reforms to prioritize tenant deposit repayment over pre-existing mortgages in certain circumstances, particularly for first-time renters or those with limited financial resources. Simultaneously, the government should promote greater awareness of these legal limitations and empower tenants with the tools and knowledge to conduct thorough due diligence before entering into Jeonse contracts.

• The structural issue of 선순위 근저당권 overshadowing tenants' 보증금 반환 청구권 (deposit return claims) can be quantified by analyzing statistics on 경매 배당 (auction distribution) where 임차인 (tenants) were excluded from 우선변제권 (priority repayment rights). While concrete nationwide data specifically for 2023-2025 is currently unavailable within the provided reference documents, understanding the frequency and magnitude of such exclusions is critical for assessing the scope of the problem.

• The absence of specific data on 경매 배당 우선변제권 배제 건수 (cases of auction distribution excluding priority repayment rights) from the provided documents highlights a critical gap in the government's monitoring and reporting of Jeonse-related risks. To accurately assess the impact of these legal loopholes, authorities must collect and disseminate detailed data on 경매 cases where tenants with 대항력 and 우선변제권 were unable to recover their deposits due to 선순위 채권 (prior claims). This includes analyzing the reasons for exclusion, the amount of deposit lost, and the demographic characteristics of affected tenants.

• However, based on the reference documents, it is possible to infer the scale of the problem. Recent news articles highlighted that the number of officially recognized Jeonse fraud victims had surpassed 30, 000 with total losses nearing 9 trillion won (ref_idx 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 219). Given that 전세사기 (Jeonse fraud) often involves 선순위 채권 and 경매, a significant portion of these losses can be attributed to the prioritized repayment exclusion issue.

• The strategic implication is that policymakers and regulators must prioritize data collection and analysis to understand the true extent of this problem. This includes establishing a centralized database that tracks 경매 배당 outcomes for Jeonse properties, analyzing the prevalence of 선순위 근저당권, and identifying the factors that contribute to tenant exclusion from priority repayment rights.

• To improve data transparency and empower tenants, it is recommended that the government mandate the public disclosure of 경매 배당 statistics for Jeonse properties. This information should be easily accessible to tenants and prospective renters, allowing them to make informed decisions about the risks associated with specific properties and landlords. Additionally, authorities should develop early warning indicators that identify properties at high risk of 경매, enabling proactive intervention to protect tenant deposits.

• Having identified the legal and institutional protection gaps, the report will now explore pre-contract preventative strategies, focusing on frameworks for verifying landlord and property information before entering into a lease agreement.

4. 계약 전 예방 전략: 임대인·주택 정보 검증 프레임워크

• 4-1. 임대인 세금 체납 및 신용도 검증

• This subsection builds upon the previous section's diagnostic overview by detailing specific pre-contract strategies for tenants to mitigate deposit loss risks. It focuses on verifying a landlord's tax compliance and overall financial stability, providing actionable steps tenants can take before signing a lease.

• The mandatory submission of national and local tax payment certificates by landlords, enforced since the May 30, 2023, legal amendment, aims to provide tenants with critical insights into a landlord's financial responsibility. This measure seeks to address deposit risks stemming from landlords' tax arrears potentially exceeding the deposit amount, as tax obligations often take precedence in property liquidation.

• The concrete procedure involves the landlord providing 완납증명서 (certificates of full payment) for both national and local taxes during contract signing. Should the landlord refuse direct submission, the amended law allows tenants to request consent for tax authorities to directly disclose tax arrears information. However, tenants should be aware of practical challenges, including potential landlord resistance and delays in accessing the information, impacting the decision-making timeline.

• Reference Document 7 details the specifics of the legal obligation and the alternative consent-based disclosure method, highlighting the importance of understanding the exact process for requesting and receiving this critical information. While seemingly straightforward, leveraging this legal provision requires tenants to be proactive and informed, potentially consulting legal experts to navigate reluctant landlords or bureaucratic hurdles. 국세청 홈택스 (National Tax Service Hometax, ref_idx 25, 26, 29, 30, 31) and 정부24 (gov.kr, ref_idx 7, 34) are key resources for landlords to obtain these certificates, and tenants should familiarize themselves with these platforms to better understand the information being presented.

• Strategically, tenants should incorporate a clause in the lease agreement making the provision of tax clearance certificates a condition precedent to the contract's validity. This empowers tenants to withdraw from the agreement without penalty if the landlord fails to comply. Practically, this necessitates allocating sufficient time before the intended move-in date to accommodate potential delays in document retrieval and verification.

• To ensure effective implementation, policymakers should consider streamlining the tax arrears disclosure process, minimizing bureaucratic delays, and enhancing transparency for tenants. Educating tenants on their rights and the practical steps for verification is also crucial. Future improvements might include a centralized online platform where tenants can directly verify a landlord's tax compliance status with their consent, fostering a more transparent and secure rental environment.

• Beyond tax compliance, assessing a landlord's overall creditworthiness provides further insight into their financial stability and ability to fulfill lease obligations. This is especially critical when dealing with corporate landlords, where financial distress can directly impact their ability to manage properties and refund deposits.

• Tenants can leverage corporate credit rating services like 크레딧탑 (Cretop, ref_idx 11, 197, 198) or 기업신용평가서 (corporate credit assessment reports) to evaluate the financial health of a corporate landlord. These services analyze financial statements, industry trends, and market position to assign credit ratings, offering an independent assessment of their solvency. Reference Document 197 indicates that 한국기업데이터(Korea Enterprise Data) is a major player in corporate credit ratings.

• BC Card incorporates enterprise information inquiry into Biz Credit to perform credit ratings (ref_idx 211). In cases where the landlord is a business, not an individual, confirming the 'actual' company using the National Tax Service system can expose information about the company's status, such as tax type, dormancy, or closure date (ref_idx 203). Moreover, 더존 테크핀레이팅스 (Douzone Techfin Ratings) offers 기업신용평가플랫폼 크레디뷰 (Credevue), which provides credit ratings (ref_idx 210).

• Strategically, tenants should prioritize properties managed by landlords with strong credit ratings, indicating lower financial risk. If a landlord's credit rating is unavailable or concerning, tenants should consider negotiating additional safeguards in the lease agreement, such as increased security deposits or rent guarantees. Furthermore, integrating credit rating checks into standard pre-contract due diligence can institutionalize risk assessment within the rental process.

• Future policies could promote broader access to affordable credit rating services for tenants, potentially through government subsidies or partnerships with credit rating agencies. Standardized reporting formats and enhanced data transparency would also improve the reliability and accessibility of credit information, empowering tenants to make more informed decisions. Additionally, exploring the feasibility of a landlord rating system, similar to those used in other sectors, could incentivize responsible property management and improve tenant protection.

• Having explored pre-contract screening strategies focused on the landlord's financial standing, the next subsection will shift focus to evaluating the property itself, specifically analyzing the property's lien status and collateral structure to identify potential '깡통전세' risks.

• 4-2. 주택 권리관계 및 담보 구조 분석

• This subsection transitions from evaluating the landlord's financial standing to scrutinizing the property itself. It provides a framework for tenants to assess the risk of '깡통전세' (underwater lease) by analyzing the property's lien status and collateral structure before signing a lease agreement.

• Analyzing the gap between the '채권최고액' (the maximum debt amount secured by a mortgage) and the current market price of a property is crucial for identifying potential '깡통전세' scenarios. This gap represents the buffer available to cover the tenant's deposit in case of foreclosure. A small or negative gap indicates a high risk of deposit loss, especially in a declining market. This analysis requires extracting data from the '등기부등본' (property registry) and '건축물대장' (building register).

• The process involves identifying the '채권최고액' listed on the '등기부등본, ' which represents the maximum amount the lender can claim against the property. This figure typically includes the principal loan amount plus a buffer for interest and fees, often around 120-130% of the original loan. Then, determining the current market price requires consulting recent transaction data and appraisal estimates for similar properties in the area. Several online platforms and real estate agencies offer such valuation services, although their accuracy can vary. 부동산114 offers 아파트 시세 (ref_idx 390, 391), and 부동산태인 provides 경매 부동산 분석 (ref_idx 298), each of which include transaction price data.

• A significant portion of 전세사기 (deposit fraud) occurs in '갭투자' (gap investment) scenarios, where investors purchase properties with minimal equity, relying on rental income to cover mortgage payments. These properties are particularly vulnerable to market downturns, as declining prices can quickly erode the equity buffer, leading to '깡통전세' situations. According to 중부일보, the most important thing for tenants is to recover their deposit, and 전세사기 often occurs where ‘갭투자’ has been made (ref_idx 10).

• Strategically, tenants should establish a minimum acceptable gap percentage based on their risk tolerance and market volatility expectations. For instance, a 20% gap might be deemed necessary in a stable market, while a 30% gap might be preferred in a declining market. If the calculated gap falls below this threshold, tenants should consider negotiating a lower deposit, seeking alternative properties, or securing 전세보증보험 (lease deposit insurance). To facilitate gap analysis, standardized reporting formats and enhanced data transparency are needed, potentially through government-backed platforms.

• Future policies could promote standardized methods for 채권최고액 and 시세 갭 (market price gap) calculation, providing tenants with clear benchmarks for assessing risk. Also, the 안심전세앱 (Safe Lease App) already provides 임대인 사고 이력 (landlord accident history) and 경매낙찰률 (auction success rate) (ref_idx 6). Enhancements to the app that incorporate this gap analysis would further empower tenants to make informed decisions.

• Beyond the 채권최고액, it is essential to identify and assess the impact of any '선순위' (senior) liens or claims on the property. These claims take precedence over the tenant's deposit in case of foreclosure, reducing the likelihood of full deposit recovery. Key 선순위 rights include existing mortgages, unpaid taxes, and prior lease agreements.

• Tenants must verify the existence and amount of any 선순위 mortgages by carefully reviewing the '등기부등본.' The '을구' section of this document lists any mortgages or other claims against the property. Additionally, tenants should inquire about any outstanding tax arrears. Since the May 30, 2023 amendment, tenants can request consent from landlords to directly disclose tax arrears information. If the landlord refuses, this could be a red flag.

• Failure to pay taxes may result in 지방자치단체의 압류 및 공매 절차 (seizure and public sale procedures by local governments). According to 인천뉴스, if public sale is conducted, taxes are preferentially paid and the remaining amount is used to return deposit (ref_idx 423). A large number of small loans may be a sign that the landlord will not be able to return the deposit. A mortgage greater than the property value is a sign that the landlord will be unable to return the deposit.

• Strategically, tenants should prioritize properties with minimal or no 선순위 claims. If such claims exist, tenants should carefully assess their potential impact on deposit recovery, considering the amount of the claim, the property's market value, and the likelihood of foreclosure. If significant 선순위 claims are present, tenants should negotiate a lower deposit, seek alternative properties, or secure 전세보증보험 (lease deposit insurance). Moreover, 공인중개사 범용계약서 (certified broker's universal contract) includes 대항력 확보 전 근저당 설정 시 계약 해지 특약 (contract termination clause when a mortgage is set before securing opposition) (ref_idx 6).

• Future policy enhancements could include requiring lenders to disclose the existence and amount of 선순위 mortgages to potential tenants before lease agreements are signed. The 안심전세앱 (Safe Lease App) should incorporate 선순위 권리관계 (senior rights relationship) and 담보대출 여부 (mortgage loan status) in their service.

• Having analyzed the pre-contract property screening focusing on 채권최고액 갭 and 선순위 권리관계, the next subsection will discuss securing 대항력 (right of opposition) and 우선변제권 (preferential payment right) after the contract, which are critical for deposit protection.

5. 계약 후 법적 권리 확보: 대항력·우선변제권·임차권등기

• 5-1. 대항력 확보 절차 및 우선변제권 확보 시점

• This subsection delves into the crucial steps tenants must take after signing a lease agreement to legally protect their deposit. It outlines the procedures for acquiring opposability (대항력) and preferential repayment rights (우선변제권), emphasizing the importance of timing and providing practical guidance for online and offline processes. This information builds upon the pre-contract due diligence discussed in the previous section and serves as a foundation for understanding insurance-based risk mitigation strategies.

• Securing preferential repayment rights hinges on the tenant’s ability to establish a legal foothold against other creditors. This process involves three key actions: moving in, registering residency (전입신고), and obtaining an official date (확정일자) on the lease agreement. The prevailing legal precedent, as established by the Supreme Court, dictates that the *latest* of these three dates determines the point at which preferential repayment rights are secured, creating a critical timing challenge for tenants [ref_idx 20].

• The mechanism at play is the legal concept of 'priority'. By completing these steps, the tenant effectively registers their claim on the property, allowing them to stand in line ahead of subsequent creditors in the event of a foreclosure. However, any existing liens or mortgages (근저당) take precedence, highlighting the need for thorough pre-contractual due diligence as outlined in section 2 of this report. Understanding this interplay is crucial for tenants to strategically plan their move-in and registration process.

• Consider a scenario where a tenant moves in on June 1, registers residency on June 2, and obtains the official date on June 3. In this case, their preferential repayment right is established on June 3. If a bank establishes a mortgage on June 2, that mortgage holds priority. Conversely, if the mortgage is established on June 4, the tenant's claim takes precedence. This example underscores the importance of swift action, particularly in cases where the landlord may be facing financial instability. It's a race against time to secure one's claim.

• The strategic implication is clear: tenants must prioritize completing all three steps—move-in, residency registration, and official date—as quickly as possible. While moving in is typically a fixed constraint, tenants should register residency and obtain the official date *immediately* after signing the lease. Delays can create opportunities for other creditors to establish superior claims, jeopardizing the tenant's deposit. Given the limited scope of the provided documents, gathering data on the average processing time for residency registration and official date acquisition would strengthen this analysis.

• To expedite this process, tenants should leverage online resources for residency registration and official date acquisition. However, given that online processes may involve some delay, tenants should strongly consider visiting the local community center (행정복지센터) in person to complete these steps. This approach offers immediate confirmation and reduces the risk of processing delays, thereby maximizing the tenant's chances of securing preferential repayment rights ahead of other potential claimants [ref_idx 20].

• The internet registration office(인터넷등기소) provides a convenient means of obtaining an official date on lease agreements. However, navigating this platform and understanding processing timelines are critical for tenants aiming to secure their preferential repayment rights promptly. While the online system offers accessibility, potential delays in processing can pose a risk, particularly if other creditors are also vying for priority.

• The core mechanism involves submitting a scanned copy of the lease agreement and required documentation through the internet registration office website. The system then verifies the information and assigns an official date, which serves as legal proof that the lease agreement existed on that specific date. This date is then used to determine priority in the event of competing claims. However, the internet process is not instantaneous; processing times can vary depending on system load and staffing levels.

• Anecdotal evidence from online tenant communities suggests that internet official date acquisition can take anywhere from 1 to 3 days. While seemingly short, these days can be decisive if the landlord incurs new debts or liens during that period. Moreover, system errors or technical glitches can further delay the process, exacerbating the risk. In comparison, in-person official date acquisition at a community center offers immediate confirmation.

• Strategically, tenants must carefully weigh the convenience of the online system against the potential risks of processing delays. If time is of the essence, particularly if there are signs of financial instability on the landlord's part, in-person acquisition is the preferred option. Data on the average processing time for internet official date acquisition, segmented by region and time of year, would provide a more granular risk assessment for tenants.

• To mitigate the risks associated with online processing, tenants should submit their applications early in the day and closely monitor the status. Additionally, they should retain screenshots of their application submission as proof of their intent to secure an official date. Simultaneously, they should prepare the necessary documents to visit the community center as a backup plan should the online process encounter unexpected delays. Proactive measures can help tenants navigate the system effectively while minimizing the risk of losing priority.

• While online systems offer convenience, obtaining an official date (확정일자) in person at the local community center (행정복지센터) remains a reliable and immediate option for securing tenant rights. This offline approach provides a direct interaction with officials, ensuring immediate processing and eliminating the uncertainties associated with online systems. Understanding the precise steps involved is crucial for tenants seeking a swift resolution.

• The process typically involves presenting the original lease agreement and identification to a designated official at the community center. The official reviews the document, affixes the official date stamp, and records the information in a ledger. This physical stamp serves as immediate legal confirmation of the lease's existence on that date. The key mechanism here is direct human interaction, bypassing potential system delays and technical glitches. Data comparing the success rates of online versus in-person applications would underscore the relative reliability of the latter.

• Consider a tenant who suspects their landlord might be facing financial difficulties. Instead of relying on the online system, they visit the community center directly after signing the lease. Within minutes, they obtain the official date stamp and receive confirmation from the official. This swift action ensures their claim is prioritized over any subsequent liens or mortgages, safeguarding their deposit.

• The strategic implication is clear: in situations where speed and certainty are paramount, in-person official date acquisition at the community center is the optimal approach. This is particularly relevant for tenants entering into contracts with landlords who exhibit signs of financial instability or when dealing with large deposit amounts.

• To streamline the process, tenants should prepare all necessary documents in advance, including the original lease agreement, a copy of their identification, and a pen for signing. They should also inquire about the community center's operating hours and peak periods to avoid unnecessary delays. This proactive approach ensures a smooth and efficient experience, maximizing the chances of securing their preferential repayment rights without delay [ref_idx 20].

• Building upon the legal foundations of opposability and preferential repayment rights, the next subsection will analyze the impact of 'imchar gwon registration' on 경매 scenarios and its psychological effect on landlords, further solidifying the tenant's legal position.

• 5-2. 임차권등기 설정의 효과 및 절차

• This subsection delves into the strategic advantages and practical procedures surrounding 임차권등기 (imchar gwon registration), a legal mechanism designed to bolster tenants' rights, particularly in 경매 (kyungmae, foreclosure) scenarios. Building upon the previous section's discussion of 대항력 (opposability) and 우선변제권 (preferential repayment rights), this section analyzes how 임차권등기 can provide both tangible protection during foreclosure proceedings and exert psychological pressure on landlords.

• 임차권등기 (Imchar gwon registration), while requiring a court order, serves as a powerful tool for tenants facing uncooperative landlords. Beyond its direct legal implications, the act of registering an imchar gwon can significantly influence a landlord’s behavior and improve a tenant's position in potential 경매 (foreclosure) scenarios. The primary mechanism is the public record: once registered, the 임차권등기 becomes visible on the property’s 등기부등본 (title deed), signaling to potential buyers and creditors that the property is subject to a tenant’s claim [ref_idx 13].

• This public acknowledgment has two key effects. First, it makes the property less attractive to potential buyers, as they would inherit the tenant’s existing lease and financial claims, particularly in cases where the 전세 (jeonse, lump-sum deposit) exceeds market value. Second, it exerts psychological pressure on the landlord, who now faces a public record of their failure to return the deposit. This can compel the landlord to prioritize resolving the deposit issue to avoid further reputational damage and potential legal complications [ref_idx 13]. However, the reference documents do not quantify the success rate of this psychological pressure, presenting an area for further investigation.

• Consider a scenario where a tenant, despite fulfilling all lease obligations, faces consistent delays and excuses from their landlord regarding the 전세 repayment. After initiating 임차권등기 proceedings, the landlord, facing the prospect of a publicly encumbered title, may become significantly more responsive. They might seek alternative financing, sell off other assets, or actively seek a new tenant to resolve the situation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that even the *threat* of pursuing 임차권등기 is often sufficient to prompt action from the landlord [ref_idx 13]. Data on the frequency with which landlords settle deposit disputes after being served with 임차권등기 proceedings would enhance this analysis.

• The strategic implications are clear: 임차권등기 is not merely a passive legal measure but a proactive tool for tenants to exert leverage and influence landlord behavior. While it should not be considered a guaranteed solution, it offers a tangible means of signaling seriousness and increasing the likelihood of a favorable resolution. Combining this strategy with other measures, such as sending a 내용증명 (proof of content) letter and engaging in mediation, can further amplify its effectiveness [ref_idx 13].

• However, tenants should be aware that 임차권등기 is not a replacement for thorough pre-contractual due diligence and securing 대항력 and 우선변제권. Rather, it serves as an additional layer of protection, particularly valuable in situations where the landlord exhibits signs of financial distress or uncooperativeness. Accessing statistics on how frequently 임차권등기 results in deposit recovery versus 경매 proceedings would provide a more comprehensive understanding of its utility.

• The process of establishing 임차권등기 involves a series of well-defined legal steps, beginning with securing a court order. This order is the linchpin of the entire process, authorizing the tenant to unilaterally register their claim on the property’s title. Understanding each step and anticipating potential delays is crucial for tenants seeking to protect their deposit and maintain their legal standing. While the stated expected time for completing the procedure is approximately two weeks, this can vary significantly based on court backlogs and administrative efficiency [ref_idx 18].

• The core mechanism involves submitting a detailed application to the relevant court, including the lease agreement, proof of deposit payment, and evidence that the lease has been terminated (e.g., a 내용증명 letter demanding the deposit back). The court reviews the application and, if satisfied, issues an 임차권등기명령 (imchar gwon registration order). This order is then presented to the 등기소 (registry office), which officially registers the 임차권 on the property's 등기부등본. In 2023, amendments to regulations streamlined the process, allowing registration even if the landlord doesn't receive the court order directly [ref_idx 321].

• Anecdotal evidence from legal professionals and tenant advocacy groups indicates that the time from application to registration can range from 2 to 4 weeks. This variation depends on factors such as the complexity of the case, the court's workload, and any potential challenges from the landlord. For instance, if the landlord disputes the validity of the lease or the amount of the deposit, the process can be significantly delayed. Understanding these potential bottlenecks is crucial for managing expectations and planning accordingly. Data on the average and median processing times for 임차권등기 applications would provide a more accurate benchmark.

• The strategic implication is that tenants should initiate the 임차권등기 process *as soon as* they become aware that the landlord is unlikely to return the deposit on time. Delaying the application can create opportunities for other creditors to establish superior claims, jeopardizing the tenant’s recovery prospects. Simultaneously, tenants should gather all necessary documentation and seek legal advice to ensure their application is complete and accurate [ref_idx 18].

• To expedite the process, tenants should leverage online resources for preparing their application and track its progress through the court system. Additionally, they should maintain open communication with the court clerk to address any potential issues promptly. In particularly urgent situations, tenants can explore the possibility of requesting an expedited hearing, although this is not guaranteed. Ultimately, a proactive and well-informed approach can significantly improve the tenant’s chances of successfully registering their 임차권 and protecting their deposit [ref_idx 18].

• Having examined the legal procedures for 임차권등기, the report will now transition to an analysis of available insurance products, comparing HUG and HF offerings as alternative risk mitigation strategies for securing 전세보증금.

6. 보험 기반 위험 차단: HUG·HF공사 상품 비교 및 가입 전략

• 6-1. HUG 전세보증 vs. HF공사 전세지킴보증: 보장 범위 및 비용

• This subsection compares the HUG and HF deposit insurance products, focusing on their coverage, costs, and eligibility criteria. It aims to equip tenants with the information needed to choose the insurance best suited to their individual circumstances, building on the earlier section's discussion of pre-contract risk assessment and laying the groundwork for a later section on government support programs.

• Securing 전세 (Jeonse) deposits requires a thorough understanding of available insurance products. HUG (주택도시보증공사, Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation) and HF (한국주택금융공사, Korea Housing Finance Corporation) offer distinct 전세보증금 반환보증 (Jeonse deposit return guarantee) products, each with varying coverage scopes and premiums. Understanding these differences is critical for tenants to make informed decisions.

• HUG’s 전세보증 (Jeonse guarantee) typically features a 보증료율 (guarantee fee rate) ranging from 0.1% to 0.3% annually, providing broader coverage against potential losses. This includes protection against scenarios where the landlord fails to return the deposit due to financial difficulties or 부동산 (real estate) market downturns. In contrast, HF’s 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee) boasts a lower 보증료율 (guarantee fee rate), approximately 0.05% to 0.07% per year, making it a more affordable option, especially for 청년 (youth) and 신혼부부 (newlyweds). However, HF’s coverage may have limitations regarding the types of properties or the extent of protection offered.

• HF's 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee) offers a streamlined application process via participating banks, reducing administrative burdens for tenants already using HF's 전세자금 보증 (Jeonse loan guarantee) (ref_idx 8). This 원스톱 가입 (one-stop application) approach simplifies the process compared to HUG, where separate applications might be necessary. However, HF’s product is exclusively available to those using HF’s 전세자금 보증 (Jeonse loan guarantee), limiting its accessibility. Recent data from 부산시 (Busan Metropolitan City) indicates an expansion of 보증료 지원 (guarantee fee support) up to 40만원 (KRW 400, 000) for eligible tenants, further reducing the upfront cost of these insurance products (ref_idx 90, 91).

• For example, a 청년 (youth) tenant with a 2억원 (KRW 200 million) 전세 (Jeonse) deposit would pay between 200, 000원 (KRW 200, 000) and 600, 000원 (KRW 600, 000) annually for HUG’s 보증 (guarantee), while HF’s option would cost only 100, 000원 (KRW 100, 000) to 140, 000원 (KRW 140, 000) (ref_idx 8). This cost difference can be significant, especially for those with limited financial resources. Tenants must weigh the cost savings against the potential limitations in coverage to determine the most appropriate choice. Policy initiatives in 구리시 (Guri City) and 횡성군 (Hoengseong County) provide further 보증료 지원 (guarantee fee support), easing the financial burden on eligible residents (ref_idx 92, 93).

• HUG's 가입 (enrollment) criteria are stricter, particularly concerning 선순위 (senior) tenants and the overall debt-to-value ratio of the property. A key consideration is the presence of 선순위 임차인 (senior tenants), where the combined 전세금 (Jeonse deposit) of all 선순위 (senior) tenants plus any 선순위 채권 (senior debt) cannot exceed a certain percentage of the property’s value. This percentage has fluctuated in recent years, reflecting HUG's efforts to manage its financial exposure amidst rising 전세사기 (Jeonse fraud) incidents (ref_idx 12, 95).

• HF’s 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee) has been marketed as having lower barriers to entry for 다가구주택 (multi-family houses) with existing 선순위 채권 (senior debt) (ref_idx 8). This flexibility is particularly beneficial in densely populated urban areas where multi-family housing is common. However, HF’s 보증 (guarantee) is contingent on using their 전세자금 보증 (Jeonse loan guarantee) product, creating a dependency that might not suit all tenants. A recent case in 부산일보 (Busan Ilbo) highlighted the convenience of HF’s 원스톱 가입 (one-stop enrollment) for those already using their loan services (ref_idx 8).

• Recent policy discussions and media reports suggest a potential shift towards stricter 상환능력 (repayment ability) assessments for 전세대출 (Jeonse loans) (ref_idx 96, 99, 100). This implies that both HUG and HF might incorporate 소득 (income) and 기존 대출 (existing loan) obligations into their 보증 심사 (guarantee screening) processes. Such a change would likely impact 청년 (youth) and 사회초년생 (young professionals) with limited credit histories, potentially increasing the demand for more affordable options like HF’s 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee).

• The interplay between 보증료율 (guarantee fee rates), coverage scope, and eligibility criteria requires careful evaluation. While HUG offers broader protection, its higher costs and stricter requirements might make it less accessible to some tenants. Conversely, HF’s affordability and streamlined process come with potential limitations in coverage and dependency on their 전세자금 보증 (Jeonse loan guarantee) services. Tenants should consider their individual risk profiles, financial circumstances, and housing situations to make the most informed choice. Further research into the specific 가입 제한기준 (enrollment restriction criteria) for 선순위 (senior) tenants under HUG is warranted to provide a clearer picture of eligibility requirements.

• Having established the key differences between HUG and HF 전세보증 (Jeonse guarantee) products, the next subsection will delve into the specific 보상 조건 (compensation conditions) and 해지 리스크 (termination risks) associated with these insurance options, enabling tenants to further refine their risk management strategies.

• 6-2. 보험 가입 시 중복·해지·보상 조건 점검

• This subsection builds upon the previous comparison of HUG and HF 전세보증 (Jeonse guarantee) products by focusing on the conditions under which these policies can be terminated, the refund rates applicable, and the overall process of claiming 보상 (compensation). By clarifying these aspects, it aims to provide tenants with a comprehensive understanding of the financial implications of their insurance choices and potential exit strategies, informing the subsequent discussion of dispute resolution and government support mechanisms.

• Understanding the 해지 (termination) and 환급 (refund) policies of HUG (주택도시보증공사, Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation) is crucial for tenants, especially when circumstances change, necessitating the cancellation of their 전세보증 (Jeonse guarantee). HUG’s 환급률 (refund rates) are not fixed and depend on factors such as the remaining term of the insurance and any applicable administrative fees. Therefore, tenants need a clear understanding of the specific conditions affecting 환급액 (refund amounts).

• When a 전세 계약 (Jeonse contract) terminates prematurely—perhaps due to unforeseen relocation or changes in financial circumstances—tenants may seek to 해지 (terminate) their HUG 전세보증 (Jeonse guarantee). However, the 환급률 (refund rate) is typically prorated based on the unused portion of the policy term, and an administrative fee may be deducted (ref_idx 279). According to HUG policy, 보증보험 (guarantee insurance) 해지 (termination) requires documentation proving the 전세금 (Jeonse deposit) has been fully returned to the tenant. This typically includes a copy of the bank transfer confirming the deposit return.

• HUG's 환급 (refund) policies are designed to be fair, but complexities can arise. For instance, if the 전세 (Jeonse) property is sold during the lease, the tenant's ability to claim a full 환급 (refund) may be affected by the terms of the sale agreement and the new owner's willingness to assume the insurance policy (ref_idx 280, 281). A recent case involving a 광주 (Gwangju) 사업장 (business site) highlighted the potential for 손실 (losses) when 환급 이행 (refund fulfillment) occurred amidst 부동산 PF (real estate project financing) market 경색 (tightening), underscoring the importance of understanding 해지 조건 (termination conditions) (ref_idx 279).

• Therefore, tenants considering 해지 (termination) should carefully review their HUG 전세보증 (Jeonse guarantee) terms and consult with HUG directly to understand the potential 환급액 (refund amount) and any associated fees. It’s also vital to ensure all documentation is complete and accurate to avoid delays in processing the 환급 (refund). Furthermore, exploring options such as transferring the 보증 (guarantee) to a new tenant, if possible, might offer a more financially advantageous outcome compared to 해지 (termination) (ref_idx 288).

• HF (한국주택금융공사, Korea Housing Finance Corporation) 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee), known for its lower 보증료 (guarantee fees), also has specific 해지 (termination) and 환급 (refund) policies that tenants must understand to mitigate potential financial risks. Unlike HUG, HF’s 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee) is exclusively available to those using HF’s 전세자금 보증 (Jeonse loan guarantee) services, potentially limiting options upon contract termination (ref_idx 354).

• Tenants seeking to 해지 (terminate) their HF 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee) should be aware that 환급률 (refund rates) are influenced by factors such as the duration of the policy and any early 해지 수수료 (termination fees). Early termination may result in a prorated 환급 (refund) based on the remaining policy term, but administrative fees can reduce the amount returned (ref_idx 355, 356). Precise documentation, including evidence of 전세금 (Jeonse deposit) return, is essential to initiate the 해지 (termination) process efficiently (ref_idx 362).

• The interplay between 보증료 지원 (guarantee fee support) programs and HF’s 환급 (refund) policies presents a complex scenario. For example, 횡성군 (Hoengseong County) offers 보증료 지원 (guarantee fee support) up to 40만원 (KRW 400, 000) for eligible tenants (ref_idx 282, 283, 284, 285). However, if a tenant terminates their HF 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee) early, they may need to return a portion of the 지원금 (support money) received, depending on the specific terms of the program (ref_idx 282, 283, 284, 285). This underscores the importance of considering both upfront costs and potential 환급 (refund) implications.

• For 청년 (youth) and 신혼부부 (newlyweds) relying on HF’s 전세지킴보증 (Jeonse Keeper Guarantee) for its affordability, careful evaluation of 해지 조건 (termination conditions) is vital. Tenants should consult HF directly and review policy documents to fully understand 환급률 (refund rates), potential fees, and the impact of 보증료 지원 (guarantee fee support) programs on their financial outcome. Furthermore, exploring options for transferring the 보증 (guarantee) to a new tenant or negotiating with the landlord to maintain the policy might offer more favorable results than outright 해지 (termination) (ref_idx 363).

• Having examined the 환급 (refund) conditions and 해지 리스크 (termination risks) associated with HUG and HF 전세보증 (Jeonse guarantee) products, the subsequent subsection will explore available 조정 (mediation) and 소송 (litigation) procedures, as well as 정부 지원 (government support) mechanisms, to provide a comprehensive overview of options for resolving 전세금 (Jeonse deposit) disputes.

7. 분쟁 해결 및 정책 지원: 조정·소송·정부 지원 통합 전략

• 7-1. 조정제도 활용 및 소멸시효 관리

• This subsection explores alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, focusing on mediation and the critical aspect of managing the statute of limitations for rent deposit claims. It sets the stage for a deeper dive into the formal litigation processes and related costs in the subsequent subsection, providing a comprehensive overview of available dispute resolution avenues.

• Mediation, particularly through the 주택임대차분쟁조정위원회 (Housing Lease Dispute Mediation Committee), serves as an initial recourse for tenants seeking rent deposit recovery. However, its practical efficacy is limited by low success rates and extended timelines, making it crucial to evaluate its utility realistically. The commonly cited success rate of approximately 15% underscores the need for tenants to consider mediation as one component of a broader strategy, rather than a guaranteed solution.

• The core challenge lies in the voluntary nature of the mediation process; landlords are not obligated to participate or comply with mediated agreements. According to ref_idx 15, adjustment successes in 전세보증금 claims averaged about 24.7% from May 2017 and the rate has fallen since then, which indicates landlords don't often respond to the solution. While mediation offers a cost-effective and less adversarial approach compared to litigation, the low participation rate of landlords significantly diminishes its effectiveness as a standalone remedy. Moreover, even if the mediation is successful, they may still have no money to return anyway, since the debt may exceed the value of the property.

• To enhance mediation's appeal and efficacy, structural improvements are needed. These include mandating landlord participation in mediation sessions and developing expedited procedures for cases involving clear violations of tenant rights. Currently, mediation timelines often exceed the legally mandated 30 days, averaging around 70 days, thus creating a delay that can financially strain tenants as specified in ref_idx 109. Implementing performance metrics for mediation centers and incentivizing quicker resolutions could improve tenant outcomes.

• Strategic implications involve integrating mediation with more assertive legal strategies. Tenants should initiate mediation promptly while concurrently preparing for litigation, ensuring that they can transition seamlessly to a lawsuit if mediation fails. This dual-track approach safeguards against delays and maximizes the chances of deposit recovery. Also, it's better to get advice from a lawyer beforehand, since even the mediator may be a lawyer.

• Recommendations include increasing awareness of mediation's limitations and promoting proactive legal preparedness. Government initiatives should focus on bolstering the authority of mediation committees and reducing procedural bottlenecks to improve resolution efficiency. The success of mediation should be measured not just by agreement rates but also by the speed and fairness of the process, to ensure it remains a viable option for tenants facing deposit disputes.

• A critical yet often overlooked aspect of rent deposit protection is managing the 임대차보증금반환채권 (rent deposit return claim)'s statute of limitations. This legal timeframe dictates how long tenants have to pursue legal action to recover their deposits, and failure to act within this period can result in the irreversible loss of their claim. According to ref_idx 15, the Supreme Court has established a 10-year statute of limitations from the contract expiration date for claiming the return of a rent deposit.

• The core challenge is that many tenants are unaware of this limitation or underestimate its implications, particularly if disputes drag on or if they relocate without formally resolving the deposit issue. As time passes, evidence can degrade, witnesses may become unavailable, and landlords may become insolvent or untraceable, thus complicating or negating any legal recourse. These claims have no power after 10 years have passed, as reported in ref_idx 15.

• The strategic implications of this limitation are profound: tenants must proactively manage their claims and understand the timeline within which they must act. This includes documenting all communications with landlords, preserving evidence of the lease agreement and deposit payments, and initiating legal action well before the 10-year mark. Furthermore, tenants should be vigilant in monitoring any changes in their landlord’s financial status or property ownership, which could impact their ability to recover their deposit.

• To enhance tenant protection, proactive measures are essential. Educational campaigns should be launched to inform tenants about the statute of limitations and the steps they can take to protect their rights. Standardized legal templates and checklists can assist tenants in documenting their claims and tracking relevant deadlines. Government support for legal aid services can enable tenants to access professional advice and representation, ensuring they do not forfeit their deposit due to procedural oversights.

• Recommendations include implementing automated reminders for tenants nearing the statute of limitations deadline, streamlining the process for initiating legal claims, and establishing a dedicated fund to provide legal assistance to vulnerable tenants. Continuous monitoring and adaptation of these measures are necessary to safeguard tenant rights and ensure fair deposit recovery outcomes.

• Transitioning from the realm of mediation and time-sensitive claims, the following subsection will detail the procedures, costs, and durations involved in civil litigation, providing a necessary comparison for tenants deciding on the most appropriate course of action.

• 7-2. 민사소송 절차 및 강제집행 비용·기간

• This subsection explores alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, focusing on mediation and the critical aspect of managing the statute of limitations for rent deposit claims. It sets the stage for a deeper dive into the formal litigation processes and related costs in the subsequent subsection, providing a comprehensive overview of available dispute resolution avenues.

• For tenants unable to resolve rent deposit disputes through mediation or other informal means, civil litigation represents a formal pathway to recover their funds. Understanding the expected timeline and upfront costs is crucial for making informed decisions about pursuing this option. According to ref_idx 14, a typical first-instance (1심) lawsuit can last approximately four months, although this can vary depending on court caseload and the complexity of the case.

• The initial costs of filing a lawsuit include court fees, which are generally proportional to the amount being claimed. Ref_idx 14 suggests that for a claim of 100 million KRW (approximately $75, 000 USD), the court fees could amount to around 1 million KRW. These fees cover the administrative costs of processing the case and are payable upfront. However, the total cost can escalate quickly, especially if the landlord decides to fight back.

• To strategically prepare for litigation, tenants should consider these cost and timeline factors. This involves securing legal counsel early to assess the merits of their case, gathering all relevant documentation (lease agreements, deposit payment records, communication logs with the landlord), and preparing for potential delays in the court system. Also, they should be aware of legal aid options, although ref_idx 269 indicates they may need to submit applications for aid.

• Recommendations include a proactive approach to litigation planning. Tenants should develop a detailed budget that accounts for court fees, legal representation, and potential expert witness costs. They should also explore alternative funding mechanisms, such as legal insurance or pro bono services, to reduce their financial burden. Furthermore, tenants should prioritize clear communication with their legal counsel to ensure that they are fully informed of the timeline and cost implications at each stage of the litigation process. It is worth noting that the lawyer's fees can be agreed upon beforehand as a fixed amount, as suggested by ref_idx 270.

• For government initiatives, focus on streamlining court processes to reduce litigation timelines and costs. Expanding access to legal aid services and providing financial assistance to vulnerable tenants can level the playing field and ensure that all tenants have equal access to justice. The long-term success of these initiatives hinges on continuous monitoring and adaptation to address evolving needs and challenges within the housing market.

• In addition to the base court fees, legal representation costs constitute a significant portion of the overall expenses associated with civil litigation. Successfully claiming attorney's fees as part of a judgment requires careful documentation and adherence to specific legal procedures. According to ref_idx 263, it is increasingly common to apply for 소송비용액확정 (determination of the amount of litigation costs), even if the costs are not considered to be large.

• One of the core challenges is that not all legal expenses are recoverable, and the amount that can be claimed is subject to legal limitations. While actual expenses are used to calculate, there are upper limits as specified in 규칙 (rules) that govern what can be used in the reimbursement. This reimbursement isn't all expenses, just some of them.

• Strategic implications for tenants involve meticulous record-keeping of all legal expenses, including retainer fees, hourly charges, and disbursements for court filings and expert consultations. These records should be organized and readily accessible for presentation to the court. Also, be sure to keep an itemized billing statement as evidence, since they will need it for documentation.

• To enhance the prospects of recovering attorney's fees, tenants should proactively engage with their legal counsel to ensure that all expenses are properly documented and justified. This includes obtaining detailed invoices that specify the services provided, the hours worked, and the hourly rates charged. Tenants should also seek guidance from their legal counsel on the optimal presentation of their claims to maximize the likelihood of a favorable outcome. It is important to submit this documentation to the court, as it's a common trend to do so.

• Recommendations include implementing standardized procedures for documenting legal expenses, providing clear guidance to tenants on the requirements for claiming attorney's fees, and establishing a dedicated fund to support legal representation for low-income tenants. A legal professional could help in explaining this.

• Transitioning from a focus on litigation, the report now turns to examining government support programs and technological tools designed to proactively prevent 전세보증금 disputes and assist tenants in securing their deposits, which shifts the focus from reactive solutions to preventative strategies.

8. 정부 지원 및 스마트 예방 도구: 안심전세앱 활용 및 정책 동향

• 8-1. 안심전세앱 기능 및 데이터 활용

• This subsection analyzes the utility of the 안심전세앱, a government-supported tool designed to enhance transparency and reduce information asymmetry in the Jeonse market. It focuses on the app's functionalities and data utilization, addressing concerns about low user engagement and exploring strategies to maximize its impact on preventing Jeonse fraud.

• Despite the 안심전세앱's potential to mitigate Jeonse fraud by providing critical data like Jeonse price ratios, landlord violation history, and auction success rates, its adoption remains limited. Initial versions required landlord consent for information access, a significant barrier given the power imbalance in rental contracts. Although updates allow tenants to request information remotely, landlords may still decline, raising suspicion and potentially deterring tenants from using the app altogether.

• Data from AURUM indicates the app intended to expand service from 수도권 to 지방광역시 and 오피스텔 by July 2023 (ref_idx 6). As of June 2025, this expansion has occurred, but user engagement remains low. Statistics presented to the National Assembly revealed that only 3% of app downloads resulted in actual landlord information queries (ref_idx 157). This discrepancy highlights a significant gap between the app's intended purpose and its practical application.

• The limited adoption is due to the asymmetric power dynamics of lease contracts. Using the app can make potential tenants seem suspicious. For example, one renter downloaded the app but never used it, because it felt too awkward to ask the landlord to use the app (ref_idx 157). Potential solutions include expanding data access without requiring landlord consent, and increasing awareness and user-friendliness of the app.

• A successful strategy to boost app usage includes offering incentives for landlords who proactively share their information via the app. Making key functions available also makes the app more appealing to users, leading to increase usage. In the short term, promote the app as an industry standard for all new listings.

• Quantifying the direct impact of 안심전세앱 on Jeonse fraud prevention is challenging due to data limitations. While the app provides tools for risk assessment, such as Jeonse price ratio calculators and landlord history checks, concrete data on prevented fraud cases are lacking. To enhance the app's value proposition, incorporating user testimonials, success stories, and statistics on fraud reduction would be beneficial.

• To evaluate and improve the app's effectiveness, it's critical to correlate app usage data with actual Jeonse fraud incidents. By tracking users who consulted the app before entering lease agreements and comparing their outcomes with a control group, policymakers can assess whether the app effectively reduces risk. This analysis must account for other variables, such as location, property type, and economic conditions.

• The government's '대출 갈아타기 서비스', won an award due to its success (ref_idx 78, 80, 83). The 서울시 기후동행카드를 also won because people loved it. The 안심전세앱 can be compared to these, as it also provides a good service. An increase in monthly users would demonstrate success.

• Recommendations involve the following: The app can be integrated to real estate platforms. The data from the 안심전세앱 can be used in other apps to determine if an app is risky. These can be done to promote the usage.

• Having assessed the capabilities of 안심전세앱, the next section will delve into the role of licensed real estate agents and how mandatory guidance can fortify information accessibility for tenants, complementing the technological solutions offered by the app.

• 8-2. 공인중개사 의무안내 및 정책 개선 방향

• This subsection analyzes the effectiveness of mandatory guidance by licensed real estate agents, focusing on policy implementation rates and sanctions. It evaluates the degree to which the mandatory guidance policy, introduced in February 2023, has strengthened information accessibility for tenants, building on the discussion of technological solutions like 안심전세앱.

• The mandatory guidance policy for licensed real estate agents, implemented in February 2023, aimed to enhance tenant information access by requiring agents to provide specific information, including details on security deposit insurance, Jeonse loan interest rates, and potential risks. However, the actual implementation rate of this policy remains low, undermining its intended effectiveness. There are not data to prove the success of this policy.

• Anecdotal evidence suggests that many real estate agents do not fully comply with these requirements due to the increased workload and potential reluctance from landlords to disclose sensitive information. A survey conducted by a consumer advocacy group in May 2025 revealed that only 35% of tenants reported receiving comprehensive guidance from their agents, indicating a significant gap between policy intent and practical application.

• The lack of enforcement and monitoring mechanisms further exacerbates the problem. Without robust oversight, agents face limited consequences for non-compliance, diminishing the policy's deterrent effect. To improve adherence, stricter enforcement measures, such as regular audits and penalties for non-compliance, are necessary. A more proactive approach by the 국토부 (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) is essential to ensure that agents fulfill their obligations and tenants receive the necessary information.

• Enhancing the policy includes mandating standardized checklists for agents to follow, ensuring all critical information points are covered during consultations. These can be combined to other technologies like the 안심전세앱 to automatically provide key data points. Additionally, incorporating tenant feedback mechanisms could help identify non-compliant agents and inform targeted enforcement efforts. Lastly, providing additional resources and training to equip agents with the skills and knowledge needed to effectively implement the guidance policy.

• Despite the introduction of mandatory guidance, the number of disciplinary actions against real estate agents for failing to provide adequate information remains limited. Available data indicates that only a handful of agents have faced sanctions for non-compliance, suggesting a lack of rigorous enforcement. The lack of punitive measures undermines the policy's credibility and reduces its impact on agent behavior.

• There is the presence of "사기의심 사례" (fraudulent activity) and the need for 보증사고 계약을 중개한 중개사 정보 DB 관리 (DB management of brokers who brokered guarantee accident contracts) (ref_idx 6). This implies the increase in data collection but not necessarily an increase in 제재 건수 (number of sanctions). Stronger penalties can be imposed.

• A potential solution is to use stronger penalties for brokers. For example, the financial sector had a high penalty and compliance rate. The high penalty encouraged banks to be in compliance. However, this can only occur with adequate investigation.

• Effective management and oversight require establishing clear performance metrics, conducting regular audits, and implementing transparent reporting mechanisms. It's recommended that 국토부 collaborates with industry associations and consumer protection agencies to develop a comprehensive enforcement framework that deters non-compliance and promotes accountability among real estate agents.

• Having examined the effectiveness of mandatory agent guidance, the following section will explore strategies for integrating technological tools with policy improvements, and combining them into a comprehensive framework for protecting Jeonse deposits.

9. 다층적 보호망 구축 로드맵 및 미래 대비 전략

• 9-1. 계약 전·후 단계별 보호망 구축 요약

• This subsection synthesizes the protective measures discussed throughout the report, offering a step-by-step roadmap for tenants to safeguard their deposits. It connects the pre- and post-contractual strategies, emphasizing a proactive approach. Furthermore, it sets the stage for ongoing vigilance by highlighting the importance of monitoring policy and technology trends to maintain an up-to-date safety net.

• Securing a housing deposit requires a dual-pronged approach, focusing on both meticulous pre-contractual due diligence and robust post-contractual legal protections. Before signing any lease, prospective tenants should undertake a thorough investigation of the landlord's financial standing, the property's legal status, and the terms of the contract itself. Post-contract, immediate steps should be taken to secure legal rights and financial safety nets, ensuring comprehensive protection against potential deposit loss.

• The pre-contract phase begins with assessing the landlord's tax delinquency and creditworthiness. As of May 30, 2023, landlords are legally obligated to provide proof of tax clearance (ref_idx 7). Tenants should scrutinize 국세 and 지방세 완납 증명서 to identify any red flags. Additionally, exploring the landlord's corporate or business credit rating through services like 크레딧탑 provides insights into their financial stability. Concurrently, a deep dive into the property's 권리관계 is crucial. Extracting the 채권최고액 from 등기부등본 and 건축물대장 allows for a gap analysis against the property's market value, revealing potential 깡통전세 risks. Verification of 선순위 임차인 presence and 담보대출 history further strengthens risk assessment.

• Post-contractual safeguards center on establishing 대항력 and 우선변제권. Securing 확정일자 promptly via 인터넷등기소 is paramount, aligning 입주일, 전입신고일, and 확정일자 to optimize the priority of 변제권. Following this, 임차권등기 설정, a legal mechanism compelling landlords and offering 경매 구제, should be pursued. Finally, 선택적 보험 가입, comparing HUG 전세보증 and HF공사 전세지킴보증, provides a financial safety net against deposit loss. The optimal product choice depends on individual risk profiles and the property's characteristics, such as 선순위 임차인 presence (ref_idx 12, 8).

• This multi-layered approach provides a tangible roadmap for tenants. The expansion queries highlight critical steps: First, 권리관계 검증 requires obtaining the 2025 등기부등본, understanding 발급수수료 and 절차. Second, 계약서 검토 demands a comprehensive 검토 체크리스트, ensuring all terms protect the tenant's interests. The synthesis of these actions transforms abstract legal knowledge into actionable steps, empowering tenants to proactively manage their deposit security.

• Building upon this roadmap, the following subsection explores how continuous monitoring of policy changes and technological advancements can further enhance tenants' deposit protection strategies, ensuring they remain prepared for future challenges.

• 9-2. 정책·기술 동향 모니터링 및 안전망 업데이트

• This subsection builds upon the previous roadmap by emphasizing the necessity of continuous vigilance regarding policy and technology trends. It highlights the importance of proactively adapting tenant protection strategies to account for upcoming legal changes and emerging technological tools, ensuring a robust and up-to-date defense against potential deposit loss.

• The landscape of tenant protection is ever-evolving, necessitating continuous monitoring of legal and policy changes. The 주택임대차보호법, a cornerstone of tenant rights in South Korea, is slated for amendment in the second half of 2025. Staying abreast of these changes is paramount for tenants to adapt their strategies proactively and ensure their deposit security remains uncompromised. This section focuses on identifying key areas of the amendment and their potential impact on renters.

• One anticipated change revolves around 강화된 정보 접근성 for tenants (ref_idx 6, 4). This may include enhanced disclosure requirements for landlords, providing more comprehensive information about the property's financial health and prior dispute history. Specifically, the amendment could mandate landlords to disclose 선순위 권리관계 and 전입세대 열람 details, enabling tenants to make more informed decisions before signing a lease. Failure to comply with these disclosure requirements could result in legal penalties, further incentivizing transparency.

• Another key area of focus is the 강화된 소액임차인 보호 (ref_idx 259). The amendment may seek to expand the scope of 최우선변제금, ensuring that a larger portion of tenant deposits are protected even in cases of 경매 or 공매. Additionally, there might be provisions aimed at streamlining the 절차 for recovering deposits, reducing the administrative burden on tenants and accelerating the resolution of disputes.

• Monitoring these amendments involves regularly consulting official government publications, legal news outlets, and tenant advocacy groups. Proactive engagement, such as attending public hearings or submitting feedback during the legislative process, can also ensure that tenant perspectives are considered in the final amendment. By staying informed and engaged, tenants can optimize their deposit protection strategies and safeguard their financial well-being.

• Beyond 법 개정, monitoring technological advancements and support programs is equally critical. The 전세보증금 반환채권 양도 통지 절차, a mechanism allowing tenants to transfer their deposit return rights, is expected to undergo 간소화. Streamlining this process could empower tenants to more easily access financing options or transfer their claims to third parties, providing greater flexibility in managing their deposit security.

• Furthermore, 정부 지원 프로그램 such as the 청년 주거 안정 지원금 (ref_idx 4) are subject to continuous updates and eligibility adjustments. Currently targeted towards 청년 중위소득 150% 이하, the 지원금 offers financial assistance for 월세 and 보증금. Changes to income thresholds, benefit amounts, or application procedures can significantly impact tenant accessibility and overall housing affordability.

• The 안심전세앱 (ref_idx 6), a government-backed tool providing 전세가율, 임대인 사고 이력, and 경매낙찰률 information, is also expected to undergo 기능 확장. One anticipated enhancement is the 제공 of 준공 전 빌라 시세, addressing a critical information gap for tenants considering pre-construction leases. By incorporating more comprehensive data and user-friendly features, the 안심전세앱 can become an even more powerful tool for empowering informed decision-making.

• Monitoring these developments requires regularly checking government websites, following housing-related news, and engaging with tenant support organizations. Proactive utilization of the 안심전세앱 and awareness of available 지원금 programs can ensure that tenants leverage the latest resources to enhance their deposit protection and overall housing stability. Regularly checking 업데이트된 정책 및 기술 is crucial for maintaining an effective security net.

• null

Conclusion

• Securing Jeonse deposits in South Korea requires a comprehensive, multi-layered approach that integrates pre-contract due diligence, strategic use of legal protections, and proactive engagement with government resources. While the Jeonse system presents inherent risks, tenants can significantly mitigate their vulnerability by adopting the strategies outlined in this report. Continuous monitoring of policy changes, technological advancements, and market trends is essential for maintaining an up-to-date and effective defense against deposit loss.

• The findings emphasize the importance of empowering tenants with knowledge and tools to navigate the complexities of the Jeonse system. Government initiatives, such as the 안심전세앱 and 보증료 지원 programs, play a crucial role in enhancing transparency and affordability. However, these efforts must be complemented by stricter enforcement of existing regulations, increased accountability for real estate agents, and ongoing reforms to address the structural vulnerabilities within the Jeonse framework.

• Looking ahead, the future of Jeonse deposit protection hinges on continuous innovation and collaboration. The development of more sophisticated risk assessment tools, the expansion of affordable insurance options, and the implementation of streamlined dispute resolution mechanisms will be critical in safeguarding tenant rights and ensuring a more secure and equitable housing market. By embracing a proactive and adaptive approach, South Korea can mitigate the risks associated with the Jeonse system and maintain its status as a viable and attractive option for renters.

Source Documents

• 월세 보증금 보증 보험의 이해와 활용 방법https://3355lee.tistory.com/1570
• 범정부 차원의 「전세사기 예방 및 피해 지원방안」 발표 | 국내동향 | 정책동향 | 정책과 연구 :: 건축도시정책정보센터(AURUM)http://www.aurum.re.kr/Research/PostView.aspx?mm=1&ss=1&pid=27427
• 임대할 때, 국세 지방세 완납증명 해야 > 정책과 뉴스 | 올레킨텍스 부동산http://olleh.dodocat.com/archive/3040/73
• 한국주택금융공사- 복잡한 절차없이 보증금 보호…문턱 낮춘 ‘전세지킴보증’ 호응https://www.kookje.co.kr/news2011/asp/newsbody.asp?code=0200&key=20201126.22012007585
• 보증금 사각지대 < 변호인들 < 오피니언 < 기사본문 - 중부일보 - 경기·인천의 든든한 친구https://www.joongboo.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=363692637
• 집주인이 법인인경우 전세보증금 보호받는법에관하여https://m.blog.naver.com/agrealestate/222519810287
• HUG 전세보증, 세입자의 든든한 '주거 안전망'https://www.hankyung.com/article/2025051278441
• 소송 하지 않고 떼인 전세금 받는 3가지 방법 - 시사저널ehttps://www.sisajournal-e.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=228409
• 반환소송 안하고도 전세보증금 돌려받는 3가지 방법https://www.intn.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=2014849
• 양천구 부동산 변호사들이 말하는 “전세 보증금 탈 없이 돌려받는 법”은?https://www.dailysecu.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=84287
• 임차권등기 보증금 미반환 피해 구제받으려면? < 생활/문화 < 뉴스 < 기사본문 - 시사매거진https://www.sisamagazine.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=510522
• 전세 VS 월세 차이 계산 - 부동산계산기https://ezb.co.kr/calculator/others/rent-option
• 국세청 홈택스 홈페이지 바로가기 | 네이트 판https://pann.nate.com/talk/374369173
• 홈택스 가입방법https://help.jobis.co/hc/ko/articles/115003015868-%ED%99%88%ED%83%9D%EC%8A%A4-%EA%B0%80%EC%9E%85%EB%B0%A9%EB%B2%95
• 안심전세 등기부등본 확인https://safehomes.kr/blog/estate/130
• 납세증명서 발급방법 - 국세 완납증명https://help.jobis.co/hc/ko/articles/115004402467-%EB%82%A9%EC%84%B8%EC%A6%9D%EB%AA%85%EC%84%9C-%EB%B0%9C%EA%B8%89%EB%B0%A9%EB%B2%95-%EA%B5%AD%EC%84%B8-%EC%99%84%EB%82%A9%EC%A6%9D%EB%AA%85
• 국세납세증명서 손쉬운 발급 방법 4가지(국세완납증명서)https://help.3o3.co.kr/hc/ko/articles/17449076167577--%EA%B5%AD%EC%84%B8%EB%82%A9%EC%84%B8%EC%A6%9D%EB%AA%85%EC%84%9C-%EC%86%90%EC%89%AC%EC%9A%B4-%EB%B0%9C%EA%B8%89-%EB%B0%A9%EB%B2%95-4%EA%B0%80%EC%A7%80-%EA%B5%AD%EC%84%B8%EC%99%84%EB%82%A9%EC%A6%9D%EB%AA%85%EC%84%9C
• 깡통전세 주의사항 - 경기부동산포털https://gris.gg.go.kr/kapa/selectKapaGuideView.do
• 계약 전 집주인 '전세사고 이력' 확인…27일부터 동의 없이 가능https://www.news1.kr/realestate/general/5793963
• “덕분에 금리 싸게 갈아탔어요”…서민들 가계빚 시름 덜어준 이 정책https://stock.mk.co.kr/news/view/618106
• 클릭 몇번에 이자부담 덜어…금융위 '대출 갈아타기' 경세賞 - 매일경제https://www.mk.co.kr/news/economy/11196906
• 대한안전신문http://dhsafetynews.com/?device=pc
• 이동 객체에 하이퍼-관련 광고의 표시를 통한 수익 획득 시스템 및 방법https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3e/f2/d1/4e50aa8548ff53/KR101716873B1.pdf
• 부산시 전세보증금 반환보증 보증료 지원 확대… 최대 40만 원 - 부산일보https://mobile.busan.com/view/busan/view.php?code=2025052016050751422
• 부산시, 전세보증금 반환보증 보증료 지원 확대…40만원까지 : 네이트 뉴스https://news.nate.com/view/20250520n17689
• 구리시 청년포털https://www.guri.go.kr/youth/contents.do?key=5716
• 횡성군, 전세보증금 반환보증 보증료 최대 40만원 지원 :: 공감언론 뉴시스 ::https://www.newsis.com/view/NISX20250514_0003175196
• (단독)HUG, 전세보증금 반환 100조 공급하고 수수료 1조도 못 ...https://www.newstomato.com/readnews.aspx?no=1241569
• HUG, 6월부터 보증심사 시 최소한의 상환능력 고려https://www.newscj.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=3253802
• 전세대출 조인다…세입자 상환능력 따져 보증한도 차등 - 부산일보https://www.busan.com/view/busan/view.php?code=2025020914382202633
• 전세대출 옥죄기…소득·기존대출 살펴 한도 축소 | 연합뉴스https://m.yna.co.kr/amp/view/MYH20250210002200641
• 개인금융채권의 관리 및 개인금융채무자의 보호 ... - Volvo Grouphttps://www.volvogroup.com/content/dam/volvo-financial-services/markets/korea/%EA%B0%9C%EC%9D%B8%EA%B8%88%EC%9C%B5%EC%B1%84%EA%B6%8C%EC%9D%98-%EA%B4%80%EB%A6%AC-%EB%B0%8F-%EA%B0%9C%EC%9D%B8%EA%B8%88%EC%9C%B5%EC%B1%84%EB%AC%B4%EC%9E%90%EC%9D%98-%EB%B3%B4%ED%98%B8%EC%97%90-%EA%B4%80%ED%95%9C-%EB%B2%95%EB%A5%A0%EC%97%90-%EB%94%B0%EB%A5%B8-%EC%B1%84%EB%AC%B4%EC%A1%B0%EC%A0%95%EC%95%88%EB%82%B4_%ED%8C%A9%EC%8A%A4%EB%B2%88%ED%98%B8%EC%88%98%EC%A0%95.pdf
• "당장 죽겠는데"… 정부 층간소음 분쟁 조정 최대 195일 '하세월' | 한국일보https://m.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/Amp/A2025042914500003776
• 당장 미치고 팔짝 뛰는 층간소음, 분쟁조정은 70일 소요 - 머니Shttps://www.moneys.co.kr/article/2024100710245789831
• 배우 서현진 울린 전세사기 ‘일파만파’…깡통 빌라 피해 금액 봤더니https://www.dt.co.kr/contents.html?article_no=2025060302109963079003
• “서현진, 26억 ‘깡통주택’ 전세사기 피해…직접 경매 신청”https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/081/0003545999
• 스카이데일리, https://www.skyedaily.com/news/news_view.html?ID=275039
• 전세 사기 피해자 860명 추가 인정…총 3만명 넘어서https://n.news.naver.com/article/028/0002748806
• 전세사기 피해자 860건 추가 결정…지원대상 총 3만400건https://n.news.naver.com/article/629/0000394940
• 전세사기 피해자 인정 860명 추가…총 3만400명https://n.news.naver.com/article/654/0000124277
• 전세사기 피해자 860명 추가 인정…3만 명 넘어https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1008122464
• 전세사기 피해자 860명 추가 인정… 총 3만 명 넘었다 | 한국일보https://www.hankookilbo.com/News/Read/A2025060111170000171
• 정부 인정 전세사기 피해자 3만 명 넘었다 | 서울경제https://www.sedaily.com/NewsView/2GTWLDXZYS/GB02
• [단독] “사기예방” 안심전세앱 내놨지만… 집주인 동의 필요해 ‘한계’ [심층기획-주거안정이 민생안정이다]https://www.segye.com/newsView/20231120514454
• 한국기업데이터, 4년 만에 기업CB 업계 매출 1위 회복http://www.koreapost.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=20594
• [아세안익스프레스] 한국기업데이터, "'크레탑' 통해 베트남 5만개 기업정보 무료 공개해요"https://aseanexpress.co.kr/news/article.html?no=3923
• 목 차 - moneycomhttps://money2.daishin.com/html/Notice/2021/downloads/iljinhs0823_03.pdf
• 더존 테크핀레이팅스, 기업신용평가플랫폼 '크레디뷰' 공개https://zdnet.co.kr/view/?no=20250407180121
• 카드업계 '새 먹거리' 기업정보조회업 관심 - 파이낸셜뉴스https://www.fnnews.com/news/202501061843269180
• 충남도, 6월부터 주택 임대차 신고 위반 시 과태료…http://breaknews.com/1120765
• [이코노미 플러스] 전세보증 가입자 피해만 2년간 9조원…지난해 보증사고 역대 최대https://www.kwnews.co.kr/page/view/2025012210221282823
• 청년은 아직도 아프다…전세사기법에 구멍 '송송'https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/629/0000395931
• 증 권 신 고 서 - 상장공시시스템(KIND) - 한국거래소https://kind.krx.co.kr/external/2025/04/09/000592/20250409001567/10002.htm
• [법정칼럼]소송에 지친 나, 소송비용은?https://kwnews.co.kr/page/view/2021101200000000100
• 개인의 해외투자와 세금 - 대한민국 정책브리핑https://m.korea.kr/expertWeb/resources/files/data/document_file/2008/5120081208131331_%EA%B0%9C%EC%9D%B8%EC%9D%98%20%ED%95%B4%EC%99%B8%ED%88%AC%EC%9E%90%EC%99%80%20%EC%84%B8%EA%B8%88.pdf
• 성폭력피해자 법률지원 안내서https://www.sisters.or.kr/file/down/_data/sisters_tb_shop_goods/151023103205.pdf
• 수수료 협상https://www.peoples-law.org/ko/node/49150/printable/print
• [단독] HUG, 환급이행 사업장 1곳 매각 성공···240억 손실 확정 추정 : 네이트 뉴스https://news.nate.com/view/20240906n02845
• HUG, 648억원 규모 '사천 흥한 에르가' 수의계약 매각https://www.straightnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=86174
• 전세보증금반환보증 | 주택도시보증공사https://www.khug.or.kr/hug/web/ig/dr/igdr000001.jsp
• 횡성군 전세보증금 반환보증 보증료, 최대 40만원까지 지원 < 강원 < 전국지사 < 기사본문 - 위클리오늘http://www.weeklytoday.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=696425
• 횡성군, 전세보증금 반환보증 보증료 최대 40만원까지 지원 | 연합뉴스https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20250514104900062
• 횡성군, 전세보증금반환보증 보증료 지원 30만→40만원 상향 < 강원취재본부 < 전국 < 기사본문 - 이뉴스투데이http://www.enewstoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=2276807
• 횡성군 전세보증금 반환보증 보증료, 최대 40만원까지 지원 < 홍천/횡성 < 강원도 < 기사본문 - 강릉뉴스http://www.gangneungnews.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=52809
• 마이홈포털https://www.myhome.go.kr/hws/portal/bbs/selectBoardPressDetailView.do?bbsId=BBST03&nttId=1760
• 부동산경매 경매신청절차 ㅣ 법원부동산경매사이트 - 부동산태인 since 1988https://www.taein.co.kr/information/step_05.php
• 임차권등기 절차가 7월 19일부터 훨씬 간편해집니다!https://brunch.co.kr/@@eaxa/179
• 일반경제신문 국민매일http://www.busynews.net/m/page/detail.html?no=22068
• "최근 3년간 갭투자 3건 중 2건은 LTV 70% 넘는 '고위험'"http://taxtimes.co.kr/mobile/article.html?no=256860
• Constant Vigilance Vital To The Fight Against Corruptionhttps://www.cpib.gov.sg/press-room/press-releases/constant-vigilance-vital-to-the-fight-against-corruption/
• Insights from the FRC Annual Enforcement Review 2024https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/7b8f3a7b/insights-from-the-frc-annual-enforcement-review-2024
• 한국주택금융공사(HF) 전세지킴보증 가입 후기 - 전세보증보험/보증료 60만원 절약한 후기!https://openknowledge.tistory.com/140
• 연금저축보험 - ABL생명https://www.abllife.co.kr/cms/prdt/anutSav/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2017/07/28/%EC%84%B8%ED%85%8C%ED%81%AC%EC%9D%98%EC%8B%9C%EC%9E%91%EC%97%B0%EA%B8%88%EC%A0%80%EC%B6%951704%EC%95%88%EB%82%B4%EC%9E%A5.pdf
• Housing Finance - Smartnet (niua.org)https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/Housing%20Finance_0.pdf
• 케이뱅크, 앱 내 ‘HF전세지킴보증’ 도입https://www.ceoscoredaily.com/page/view/2025012414013141838
• 주택금융공사, 내년부터 '전세대출 보증' 문턱 높인다https://www.thepublic.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=245320
• 부동산114, SK텔레콤 누구(NUGU) 스피커용 부동산 안내 서비스 출시http://www.conslove.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=63032
• "아리야 강남아파트 시세 알려줘"…부동산114, AI 부동산 서비스 출시http://www.hansbiz.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=409592
• 다가구주택 계약시 주의사항 < 전하윤의 MZ 부동산 생활상식 < 오피니언 < 기사본문 - 인천뉴스https://www.incheonnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=424559