Rent increase versus tenant retention for a ₩1,980,000,000 Seoul studio

X

xavi_wren

Property manager
The tenant would understandably prefer the current ₩7,360,000 rent, and I hesitate to disturb a tenancy with reliable payments and good care of the studio. On the other hand, comparable advertisements are near ₩8,042,000 for a home valued at roughly ₩1,980,000,000, so ignoring the gap indefinitely may create a harder review later.

My first step is to check whether those listings truly match the size, condition, furnishings and location, then review the maintenance record, deposit arrangement and lease timing. After confirming the applicable South Korean notice and increase requirements, would a staged adjustment be fairer than either no change or an immediate move to the advertised level?
 
The detail that changes the balance for me is the tenant’s reliable payment and care of the home. The advertised gap is ₩682,000, but that extra income is reversible if a smaller rise proves appropriate; losing a good tenant and taking on vacancy, cleaning and repairs is not so easily undone.

I would estimate one realistic turnover scenario rather than assume every advertised won becomes achievable rent. Compare that cost with a partial increase, while also checking the deposit terms and lease position before putting forward a figure.
 
How comparable are those listings in size, condition, furnishing and exact location? Also, what is the deposit arrangement and where are you in the current lease term? Those details could affect both the meaningful rent comparison and how any change must be handled. I’d confirm the applicable notice and increase rules before mentioning a number.
 
My preferred outcome would be a staged increase, but only if the ₩8,042,000 comparisons withstand scrutiny. A permanent decision based on optimistic advertisements could cost more than leaving some of the gap untouched.

Check achieved rents where possible, listing age, condition, furnishings and the exact micro-location. Then account for the tenant’s maintenance history and the likely cost of vacancy. If the evidence still supports an increase, show the tenant the range and propose a measured first step rather than treating the full ₩682,000 difference as immediately due.
 
That’s fair, but the quality of the evidence matters. I’d separate actual comparable homes from ambitious listings that have been sitting vacant. The maintenance history also deserves a line in the calculation: a tenant who reports problems promptly and has caused little avoidable damage reduces costs that never appear in the headline rent.
 
A practical approach would be to prepare three figures: the present rent, a defensible market range, and the net benefit after one plausible vacancy and refurbishment period. Then speak to the tenant before issuing formal paperwork. Say that you value the tenancy, show why a review is being considered, and invite a response. Any agreement should clearly distinguish rent from deposit handling and follow the locally applicable contract and notice requirements.
 
There may also be room to trade certainty for price. A smaller increase paired with a clear renewal commitment could be worth more than seeking ₩8,042,000 and testing the market. Conversely, if the tenant wants maximum flexibility, moving closer to market may be reasonable. I’d decide the minimum outcome you can accept before the conversation, but avoid presenting an asking-rent screenshot as proof of settled market value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top