We should require the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation to publish live, address-level collateral recognition ratios for jeonse deposit return guarantees before this autumn’s renewal rush—not because tenants are entitled to risk-free housing, but because they are signing multi-hundred-million-won contracts blind while banks and guarantors already share the numbers in closed portals.
What the record shows
After jeonse fraud waves, HUG tightened eligibility so deposit plus senior liens must stay within 90 percent of appraised value, with appraisal caps tied to official prices. KDI researchers documented guarantee balances above 100 trillion won on refund products alone, with collateral rules that decide whether a tenant can renew or must walk away. Reporting by Maeil Business showed tens of thousands of existing guarantees still above 80 percent recognition—meaning a modest policy tweak could void renewals mid-lease.
Yet tenants typically learn their property’s ratio only after paying a nonrefundable guarantee fee or when a landlord’s lender blocks registration. Realtors quote “probably fine” based on listing portals that omit senior mortgages. That asymmetry is not a market mystery; it is a disclosure choice.
What dashboards would change
A live dashboard—updated nightly from registry and appraisal feeds—would let renters see whether their unit sits at 72 percent or 89 percent recognition before they wire deposits. It would flag buildings where multiple guarantees cluster, a pattern fraud investigators treat as a red alert. Banks already ingest similar data for loan underwriting; there is no technical reason guarantors cannot expose a tenant-safe slice with address masking for occupied units.
Opponents will say publishing ratios could spook markets and invite predatory buying of distressed buildings. That objection assumes tenants are safer when uninformed. We disagree: sunshine forces landlords to clean liens before marketing, and it gives guarantee corporations an incentive to fix data lags that now surface only in lawsuits.
The strongest objection
Landlords argue granular disclosure violates privacy and could breach lender confidentiality. The answer is tiered access: tenants verify identity through the existing guarantee application flow, then view only their unit’s banded ratio and trend, not neighbor names. MOLIT already operates price disclosure systems; this extends the same principle to the guarantee that makes jeonse possible.
What agencies should do
MOLIT should order HUG and competing insurers to synchronize collateral feeds by 1 October, publish API documentation for consumer apps, and penalize guarantors that report stale liens. The National Assembly should attach funding in the housing stability account for a public dashboard, not another brochure on fraud awareness. Realtors must be barred from marketing “guarantee-ready” units without a dated ratio screenshot—enforced by the Korea Association of Realtors, not honor codes.
What we are not saying
This editorial does not demand 100 percent guarantees on every villa in Gangwon, nor does it ask the state to backstop speculative purchases. It says tenants should not be the last party to see the math that decides whether their deposit returns. Fall rental season starts with moving trucks, not spreadsheets; that is exactly why the spreadsheets must be live before the trucks roll.
If HUG refuses, MOLIT should open the data itself. Accountability belongs in the appropriations line that funds guarantees—not in another press release after someone loses a deposit.
