The South Korean government is expanding the exemption of primary-residence obligations for all multi-owner homes in land-transaction-permit zones [1].

This policy shift aims to unlock stagnant housing inventory by allowing owners of tenanted properties to sell their homes without being forced to live in them first. By removing this barrier, officials hope to increase the number of available listings in highly regulated areas, including Seoul [1].

Under current land-transaction-permit systems, buyers in designated zones are typically required to use the property as their primary residence. However, the government will now allow an exemption for "se-kkin jutack" — homes that already have tenants — until the end of 2026 [1]. This measure is designed to address equity issues between different types of multi-home owners, and to encourage a more fluid real estate market [1].

Government officials said the move is expected to provide a modest boost in the number of homes listed for sale. The exemption period is set to remain in place through the end of the year [1].

Market analysts suggest that while the number of available properties may increase in the short term, the long-term impact on price stability and supply remains uncertain. The government said the goal is to resolve the friction created by strict residency requirements that often prevent owners from selling properties with existing lease agreements [1].

This adjustment targets specific zones where land transactions require official permission to prevent speculative investment. By relaxing the rules for tenanted homes, the administration seeks to balance the need for speculation control with the necessity of maintaining a functional housing market [1].

“The South Korean government is expanding the exemption of primary-residence obligations for all multi-owner homes.”

This policy represents a tactical pivot by the South Korean government to stimulate housing supply without fully dismantling speculation controls. By allowing 'tenanted' homes to be sold without the buyer assuming an immediate residency obligation, the state is attempting to reduce the 'lock-in' effect where owners hold onto properties simply because they cannot find a buyer willing or able to meet strict residency laws.