Rent increase versus tenant retention for a studio in Seoul — second opinion?

[lookTheRiver]

A fresh check of Seoul studio adverts puts comparable asking rent near ₩1,382,000, which raises a question about the tenant’s current ₩1,173,000 payment. Their payment and maintenance record is good, so replacing them merely to pursue the headline figure may not improve the actual return.

For example, one vacant month plus cleaning and minor repairs could consume many months of a higher rent. I am considering a smaller adjustment instead. Before choosing a number, should I compare deposit terms, furnishing, condition and achieved rents, then review the applicable notice requirements and how the existing deposit must be handled?

 

[bikesAndEcho]

I wouldn’t chase the full asking figure with a reliable tenant. The difference is ₩209,000 a month, but one vacant month plus cleaning, repairs and reletting effort could absorb much of the first year’s gain. Start with a smaller increase, explain the comparison calmly and give the tenant room to respond. Confirm the current South Korean notice and increase rules before proposing a number.

 

[theo_cedar]

Are the comparable studios genuinely comparable on deposit, building age, furnishing, floor and maintenance condition? In Seoul, the headline monthly rent can be misleading if the deposit or other terms differ. I’d also distinguish advertised rent from what a new tenant is actually willing to pay.

 

[zia_titles]

I agree about comparing terms, but I wouldn’t automatically reward reliability by leaving such a large gap indefinitely. That can create a harder conversation later. A staged approach seems cleaner: make a lawful adjustment now, document why it remains below current asking rent, then review again at the next appropriate point rather than promising a future increase.

 

[bikesAndEcho]

Mateo, that is fair, although I’d avoid presenting future reviews as predetermined. The market could soften, or the tenant could raise a legitimate maintenance issue. Better to say the rent will be reviewed against comparable homes and the property’s condition, not that another increase is already coming.

 

[buildTheKey]

The missing figure is expected vacancy time. Work out three cases: tenant stays after a modest rise, tenant leaves and the studio is filled quickly, or it sits empty and needs work. Include deposit settlement and any maintenance already deferred. That makes the retention discount visible instead of treating it as lost income.

 

[zia_titles]

Also separate tenant-caused refurbishment from ordinary work you would have needed anyway. If the current tenant has looked after the studio, a replacement may not trigger much repair—but repainting or updates due to age should not all be counted as a consequence of increasing the rent.

 

[theo_cedar]

True, though turnover has costs even when the unit is spotless: coordination, viewings, handover and uncertainty over the next tenant’s payment habits. Payment reliability has economic value. I’d compare the extra annual rent from each proposed increase with a realistic turnover budget, not only with the ₩1,382,000 asking figure.

 

[dev_miles]

Before discussing an amount, check the lease dates and how notice must be delivered under the rules currently applying in South Korea. A friendly conversation does not replace formal notice if one is required. It may be worth having the proposed timing and wording checked locally, especially if the deposit terms would also change.

 

[compass.keen]

One practical way to preserve the relationship is to ask about renewal intentions first, without leading with the maximum number. If the tenant wants stability, a below-market increase paired with unchanged deposit terms may be easier to assess. If they were already planning to move, the retention argument carries less weight and you can prepare for reletting.

 

[AwakeBench]

I’d put the comparison into a short written proposal: current rent of ₩1,173,000, the proposed rent, when it would take effect, what remains unchanged, and how long that proposal is intended to cover. Keep the ₩1,382,000 figure as context rather than an ultimatum. Then allow time for questions and record any agreed terms properly after confirming the local requirements.