Given that countless victims were on the verge of losing their deposits, which were tantamount to their entire assets, the passage of this bill is highly significant in establishing a minimum safety net. Nevertheless, we must not overlook the fact that blind spots and limitations still exist. It is crucial to carefully examine how effective this special act amendment can be as a relief measure and what challenges remain.

Minimum Deposit Guarantee System: What Has Changed?

One of the core aspects of this amendment is the introduction of the minimum deposit guarantee system. Previously, even if a Jeonse fraud property went to auction, victims often received almost none of their deposit back due to senior creditors. However, now, regardless of the auction outcome, the state will be responsible for at least one-third of the deposit. For example, if a victim who lost a 300 million won deposit recovers nothing from the auction, the state will provide 100 million won. If 50 million won is recovered from the auction, the state will additionally compensate the remaining 50 million won.

This serves as a social safety net, helping victims secure minimum living expenses and get back on their feet. Furthermore, the threshold for being recognized as a victim has been lowered. The deposit limit, which was previously 500 million won, has been raised to 700 million won, bringing a significant number of Jeonse victims in the Seoul metropolitan area under the legal framework. Key changes are as follows:

• The state guarantees at least one-third of the deposit (regardless of auction results)
• The recognized deposit limit for victims increased from 500 million won to 700 million won
• Attachment and provision of collateral for victim support funds are completely prohibited
• Public rental housing support is available even if the victim’s house cannot be purchased

‘Pre-payment, Post-settlement’ System for Victims of Trust Fraud

Among the various types of Jeonse fraud, trust fraud was the most complex and difficult to remedy. This method involves the landlord transferring ownership to a trust company and then deceiving tenants into signing contracts. Legally, tenants’ status was not properly recognized, making it difficult for them to participate in auction procedures. It would be accurate to say that there were virtually no remedies for them.

This amendment brings hope to victims of ‘unauthorized contracts,’ including trust fraud. It introduces a ‘pre-payment, post-settlement’ system where the state pays all or part of the minimum guaranteed amount before the auction/public sale, and then settles after the auction/public sale concludes. This means that victims do not have to endure complex legal disputes, which could take years, entirely on their own. Considering the suffering experienced by victims of trust fraud, this system is expected to provide not only financial assistance but also psychological stability. The advantages that victims of trust fraud will gain from the introduction of this system are clear:

• Pre-payment of the minimum guaranteed amount from the state before auction/public sale
• Reduced burden of complex legal disputes
• Expected resolution of issues regarding non-recognition of tenant status

Lingering Shadows: Policy Loans and Unreturned Social Housing Deposits

It is clear that this special act amendment has made significant progress in remedying Jeonse fraud. However, challenges and blind spots still remain. In particular, loopholes in the policy loan review system are still pointed out as a trigger for Jeonse fraud. According to a survey by the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, 77.8% of victims who secured their Jeonse deposit with a loan used policy loans such as the ‘Butimok’ loan. However, there is criticism that the Jeonse fraud risk assessment for these policy loans was often not properly conducted. This is a paradoxical situation where loans intended for ordinary citizens and young people are instead exposed to fraud risks.

Furthermore, recently, incidents of unreturned deposits have occurred even in ‘social housing,’ which are rental homes created with public support, causing shock. Young people who moved in trusting SH Corporation’s announcements found themselves unable to get their deposits back. The problem is pointed out as insufficient safety measures against private operational risks, despite public funds being invested. Given these circumstances, it is natural that the anxiety one wishes to ‘freeze-dry’ does not disappear. Problems that are difficult to solve with the amendment alone include:

• Need to strengthen Jeonse fraud risk assessment for policy loans
• Reinforcement of deposit safety measures for public-interest rental housing such as social housing
• Demand for fundamental system improvements to prevent fraud

The 2026 Jeonse Fraud Special Act amendment is undoubtedly an important step that will bring a ray of hope to victims of Jeonse fraud. However, continuous efforts are needed to supplement issues outside the legal framework and existing loopholes. Society as a whole must continue to show interest and make efforts to wipe away the tears of victims and ensure that no one else despairs over their deposits.

게시물 Will the State Guarantee One-Third of Your Deposit? The True Meaning of the 2026 Jeonse Fraud Special Act Amendment이 솜삽 블로그에 처음 등장했습니다.

In fact, when such a major accident occurs, while damage recovery is important, the most urgent issue is the housing problem for the victims who have lost their homes. It’s especially daunting when something like this happens right before winter. However, I felt that LH’s actions this time were not merely out of obligation as a ‘public institution.’ I’d like to discuss what exactly they did and why it’s important.

Overview of the Accident and LH’s Swift Response

The commercial building explosion in Bongmyeong-dong, Cheongju, on April 16th, was truly shocking. In an instant, over 460 cases of damage occurred, including apartments, houses, commercial buildings, and vehicles, leading to 16 casualties. In particular, with 68 victims from 37 households, housing became an urgent issue.

• Scale of damage: Over 460 cases in total, including 229 apartments, 138 houses, 49 commercial buildings, and 44 vehicles.
• Casualties: 16 people injured, 2 currently hospitalized.
• Displaced persons: 68 people from 37 households.

Immediately after the accident, Cheongju City established a disaster safety countermeasures headquarters and finalized support measures for various sectors including medical care, livelihoods, and housing. At this time, they collaborated with LH Korea Land and Housing Corporation to support the housing stability of victims through public rental housing connections. They moved very quickly. In such situations, initial response is truly crucial.

Housing Stability for Victims: LH’s Practical Solutions

I felt that the housing support measures LH put forward for the victims this time were quite practical and would be of substantial help. The most notable is the ‘public rental housing linkage’ support. Beyond simply providing rental housing, it includes conditions that consider the victims’ situations.

• Move-in without deposit: Victims can move into LH public rental housing without the burden of a deposit. This will be a huge help in a situation where it’s difficult to raise a large sum of money due to a sudden accident.
• 50% rent support: The fact that half of the rent will be supported will also significantly reduce the financial burden on the victims.
• Linkage with ‘Didim House’ emergency support housing: Efforts are also being made to minimize housing gaps by linking ‘Didim House,’ which can accommodate 5 households for 3 months in the short term.

In fact, this kind of support provides the minimum stable foundation victims need to return to their daily lives. Seeing a public institution properly fulfill such a role makes me think there’s still reason to have hope.

Beyond Simple Support: The Responsibility and Role of Public Institutions

LH’s actions in the Cheongju Bongmyeong-dong accident made me reflect once again on the responsibility and role of public institutions, beyond simple ‘disaster relief.’ It’s true that public perception of LH hasn’t been favorable due to various past controversies. Perhaps that’s why this proactive response in a crisis situation feels even more meaningful.

• Protection of the socially vulnerable: Providing stable housing to victims, who can become a housing-vulnerable group, is a role that public institutions should rightfully fulfill.
• Community cooperation: The way they collaborated with local governments to quickly establish and implement support measures is an important example of increasing the efficiency of public services.
• Opportunity for trust recovery: Sincere responses in such crisis situations will have a positive long-term impact on restoring public trust in the corporation.

Of course, this one-time support won’t solve everything, but I believe it can bring great comfort and hope to the victims. If they continue to fulfill their public role in this way, I think past regrettable memories might gradually fade.

I sincerely hope that all those affected by the Cheongju Bongmyeong-dong explosion can return to their daily lives as soon as possible. And I hope that public institutions in our society will continue to be a practical support for citizens’ lives, just as LH has shown. If these efforts continue, we can surely build a better future.

게시물 LH: The Real Reason Behind Supporting Victims of the Cheongju Bongmyeong-dong Explosion이 솜삽 블로그에 처음 등장했습니다.