The "No Home = Common People" Frame Produces Reverse Discrimination... Coining the New Term "Cheongmupisa"

The Real Estate Money Game Born from Outdated Subscription and Regulations<Part 1>

[Asia Economy Reporters Yuri Kim and Donghyun Choi] "Since it's basically a lottery, you have to enter no matter what. It doesn't cost anything anyway..." On the 28th of last month, Kwon (48, Seongnam), who applied for the 'Jungheung S-Class' in Wirye New Town during the general first-priority subscription, has been selectively applying only to popular metropolitan area complexes since last year. Although he has failed every time he applied, he doesn't mind. He expects a jackpot that will yield several hundred million won in capital gains if he wins even once.

The apartment subscription market is turning from a means for ordinary people to own a home into a speculative arena. As everyone rushes only to profitable apartments, tens of thousands of applicants are concentrated on specific complexes, creating a clear crowding phenomenon. Triple-digit competition rates are emerging frequently, giving rise to a new term, 'Cheongmupisa.' It is a self-deprecating phrase meaning 'Subscription? No way... just buy by paying the premium.'

The place with the highest competition rate in last year's nationwide apartment subscription was 'Le El Daechi' in Daechi-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, supplied in November. With 31 units offered, 6,575 people applied, resulting in an average competition rate of 212 to 1. The background of this overheated competition was that the sale price was only half compared to the actual transaction price of nearby apartments of the same size. This subscription lottery fever is not limited to Seoul. Recently, 'Maegyo Station Prugio SK View' in Maegyo-dong, Paldal-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi Province, received 156,505 subscription accounts, the largest number since the introduction of internet subscriptions.

Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

◆ Subscription System Trapped in the Dichotomy of 'No Homeowner = Ordinary Citizen' ◆ Experts point out that the current subscription system has serious flaws. The biggest problem is that it maintains an outdated dichotomous mindset equating non-homeowners with ordinary citizens. Additionally, the ranking system that does not consider changing times or buyer characteristics is causing dissatisfaction among applicants.

The most important criterion for winning in the current subscription system is 'homeownership.' In Seoul, it is virtually impossible to own a home through the subscription system unless you are a non-homeowner. The core of the subscription system, the point system, selects residents based on the total score of ▲period of non-homeownership (32 points) ▲number of dependents (35 points) ▲subscription account subscription period (17 points). Considering this, even if a house is cheap, a one-homeowner has little chance of winning in popular areas. Last year, the average winning score for apartments in Seoul gradually increased from 43.6 in Q1 to 53.4 in Q2, 54.7 in Q3, and 61.5 in Q4. For medium to large apartments over 85㎡ in speculative overheated districts like Seoul, half are selected by lottery, but three-quarters of those are allocated to non-homeowners, and the remaining quarter is competed for by non-homeowner losers and one-homeowners.

There are also criticisms that the dichotomous standard of 'no homeowner = ordinary citizen' produces reverse discrimination. Under the current subscription criteria, a contradiction arises where a non-homeowner living in a 1 billion won-level jeonse (long-term deposit lease) in Gangnam is considered an 'ordinary citizen,' while a one-homeowner owning a 300 million won house in the outskirts is not. Lee (36), a one-homeowner in Guro-gu, Seoul, said, "I regret buying a house thinking I would gradually build my own home starting from an affordable house in the outskirts," adding, "The lottery subscription market, which even restricts participation, only increases my relative sense of deprivation."

Moreover, by uniformly confining all houses within the subscription system framework, an anti-market order is created where even luxury homes worth tens of billions of won are preferentially allocated to non-homeowners. An industry insider said, "South Korea is the only country supplying luxury homes through a subscription system like ours," and pointed out, "At least the sale of homes above a certain price should be left to the market."

◆ Failure to Reflect Housing Changes... Growing Calls for Improvement ◆ The current subscription point calculation method favors older applicants with many dependents, causing relative deprivation among younger generations. Although single-person households account for 30% of all households and new family types such as common-law (cohabiting), single by choice, and DINKs (dual income, no kids) have emerged, these are not reflected in the system. Cha (37), a single-income newlywed, lamented, "New apartments are a pipe dream for the 20s and 30s with low subscription points," adding, "I even looked into special supplies for newlyweds, but without two or more children and dual income, it's practically impossible, so I gave up long ago."

Experts unanimously agree that a deep reconsideration of the entire system and new social consensus are needed to address the various social problems caused by the contradictory subscription system. A real estate expert who requested anonymity said, "The subscription system is designed to favor the older generation, causing young people to feel deprived and leading to major social problems such as declining marriage and childbirth rates." Kim Deok-rye, head of the Housing Policy Research Office at the Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, emphasized, "We need to fully consider new household structures and types of residences and design a new subscription system framework," adding, "The government should also re-examine housing supply methods and allocation principles and establish new standards and principles."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.