The amendment to the Special Law on Full Tax Fraud has been passed, but there are limitations in the recovery of actual losses.

Although Congress passed a special law amendment supporting victims of full rental fraud, evaluations suggest that it still falls short in restoring the actual level of harm and reducing the structural risks inherent in the full rental system itself.

To address the issues of full rental fraud and “shell full rentals,” the Civil Society Countermeasures Committee held a joint participatory forum in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the 28th, discussing the significance and limitations of the amendment to the “Special Law on Support for Victims of Full Rental Fraud and Housing Stability” passed by Congress on the 23rd. The contents of this amendment include: after an auction or public sale ends, the government provides financial support to ensure that the amount returned to victims is at least one-third of the deposit. Considering that many victims previously failed to recover their deposits during auction and public sale procedures, the evaluation considers institutionalizing a minimum recovery mechanism to be meaningful.

However, participants believed that this amendment is far from the so-called “relief first, recovery later” approach that victims have long demanded. In other words, its structure does not involve the government fully compensating the victim’s loss upfront and then pursuing reimbursement from responsible parties afterward, but rather remains at a stage of supplementing after auction and public sale to a certain extent. It was also pointed out that the guarantee level for deposits is below victims’ expectations, which could limit actual life reconstruction. This means that although the legal revision broadens the framework for victim relief, whether it can lead to tangible recovery remains another issue.

The forum repeatedly emphasized that full rental fraud has transcended individual criminal categories and stems from systemic vulnerabilities. Participants analyzed that, as low-interest full rental loans and guarantee systems have expanded over the long term, a rigid structure has formed where tenants rely on financial institutions rather than their own capital to cover high deposits. As a result, the “full rental price rate,” which measures the ratio of house prices to full rental deposits, has become excessively high. They explained that this creates an environment where even slight fluctuations in house prices make full deposit refunds difficult, increasing the risk of “shell full rentals,” and thus the risk of full rental fraud also grows during this gap. Participants also highlighted the need to supplement blind spots in the current system where tenants are not adequately protected, such as foreign tenants or co-guaranteed housing in row houses.

Professor Lim Jae-man of Sejong University’s Department of Real Estate pointed out that the root cause of the non-return of deposits is “shell full rentals,” and advocated for regulation that controls the full rental price rate below a certain level. For example, when the full rental price rate is too high, risks can be reduced in advance by limiting the amount of full rental loans. This aligns with the awareness that “support only after damage occurs” is a limited post-hoc measure. Ultimately, this legal revision can be seen as progress in expanding victim relief, but it also indicates that unless additional reforms are made to address the high-risk structure of the full rental market, similar problems could recur.