Seoul's 20-Year Public Lease Dispute: What the Law Says About Staying On

Seoul’s first long-term public lease contracts are due to reach the 20-year mark next year, and residents are preparing to challenge the city over what happens afterward. Tenants say the 20 years set out in law represent the landlord’s obligation to keep the homes available, not the maximum period a tenant may live there. Seoul maintains that residents should leave under the terms of their existing contracts.

Rising housing costs have intensified the dispute. In one long-term rental complex in Songpa District, a deposit worth around 200 million won when the contract was signed in 2007 has risen to roughly 700 million won. The property’s sale price has reached 1.7 billion won. Residents say that even if they receive their deposits back, they would struggle to find comparable housing in the same area.

The Public Housing Special Act’s enforcement decree sets the rental obligation for long-term public housing at 20 years. That obligation applies to the public housing provider, not the tenant. Attorney Eom Jeong-suk said residents are correct on that narrow point, but the rule does not itself create a right to remain after the period ends.

“

The two concepts are being mixed together, which is causing confusion. The residents' explanation that 20 years is the rental provider's obligation period is not wrong in terms of the structure of the statute, but that does not create a right to continue living there after 20 years.

Tenants live under two-year contracts and renewals. Eom said the homes were offered on the basis of a maximum 20-year stay, meaning the contractual and institutional framework supporting renewals ends after that period. Keeping eligibility requirements, remaining without a home and income and asset limits, and paying rent on time can protect renewals during the designated period, but does not create a separate right to stay indefinitely.

If the contract ends and the provider offers to return the deposit, residents generally must return the home. The duties to return the property and the deposit are linked, so a tenant is not automatically an illegal occupant before the provider performs or offers to perform the refund. If the tenant still refuses to leave, the provider must obtain a court judgment and use enforcement procedures. Continued occupation may also lead to claims for unjust enrichment and liability for legal costs. Seoul says it offers neither an additional extension under the existing contracts nor a conversion to ownership.

“

The tenant's duty to hand over the home and the provider's duty to return the deposit are simultaneous obligations. Until the provider returns the deposit or offers to perform that obligation, the tenant does not become an illegal occupant simply because the home has not been vacated.