Offering 8% below asking on a Seoul villa after 61 days

[DaanGale]

The seller may regard an 8% reduction as too aggressive, and I am hesitant to open badly. The Seoul villa is listed at ₩1,980,000,000, has spent 61 days on the market and would require updating, but the available nearby figures are mostly current listings rather than completed transactions.

An 8% discount gives an offer of ₩1,821,600,000. Our financing is secure and we can accommodate the seller on completion, so could those terms make the price easier to present? I would consider adjusting the timing or response deadline if we learned what the seller needs, but not at the cost of inspection protection or an unlimited deposit risk if the appraisal is low.

 

[lookTheRiver]

Present it as a complete package, not a criticism of the property: price, financing proof, flexible completion and a reasonable response deadline. The updating costs can support the number, but I would avoid giving the seller a long list of faults.

Keep inspection and financing/appraisal protection. A clean offer should mean organised and credible, not that you accept every unknown risk.

 

[OpenRoute]

Before choosing the deadline, do you know anything about the seller’s motivation? Sixty-one days may matter if they need a particular completion date, but it could mean very little if they are prepared to wait. Also ask whoever is assisting you to separate completed comparables from current listings. Similar asking prices only show what other sellers hope to receive.

 

[knitsAndLane]

I would not assume 8% below is automatically sensible. If comparable asking prices are close and this villa’s condition has already been reflected in its price, the seller may see ₩1,821,600,000 as a fishing offer. Days on market alone does not establish overpricing.

You can still make it, but decide beforehand whether it is a genuine valuation or merely an opening position. That determines how much room you leave for a counteroffer.

 

[zia_titles]

One possible structure: brief note explaining that the offer reflects the updating required and limited evidence from completed sales; attach financing proof; offer two completion-date options; then set a firm but not theatrical expiry.

I would make any deposit consequences explicit in the contract and avoid promising repair credits in advance. Inspect first, then decide whether a discovered issue justifies a credit, a price adjustment or walking away. Local contract wording matters, so have the contingencies checked before signing.

 

[CalmLens]

The appraisal gap deserves its own plan. Suppose the seller counters and you stretch upward, but the lender’s valuation does not follow. How much additional cash could you contribute without damaging your reserves? If the answer is “none,” the financing language needs to protect that limit rather than merely stating that financing is solid.

 

[theo_cedar]

I agree with keeping the offer factual, but too much written rationale can invite an argument over every repair. A short submission may work better: ₩1,821,600,000, evidence that funds and financing are ready, flexible completion, inspection and financing conditions, deposit terms, and a clear response time.

If rejected without a counter, you learn the seller is not engaging at that level. If they counter, compare the new figure with your own ceiling—not with the asking price.