[Exclusive] "Seal Was Forged, But No Charges"...The Law Fails Jeonse Fraud Victim Twice

Leasehold Registration Canceled Without Tenant’s Knowledge After Jeonse Fraud
Judicial Scrivener Submitted Photoshopped Seal Image
Prosecutors: "Electronic Documents Not Printed Do Not Qualify as Documents Under Criminal Law"

A tenant in their 20s, who managed to recover their deposit through guarantee insurance after falling victim to a jeonse fraud, became entangled in another legal dispute due to an electronic document forged by the landlord. The landlord's legal representative even forged an image of the tenant's seal to alter the rights relationship. Although the prosecution acknowledged the forgery, it decided not to indict on the grounds that the document in question was an electronic document rather than a physical one.

According to coverage by The Asia Business Daily on the 18th, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office made a decision not to indict legal scrivener A (age 62), who had been referred for indictment on charges including private document forgery and use of forged private documents last March. This upheld the previous non-indictment decision made in June last year, even after the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office had ordered a reinvestigation. A reinvestigation order is an instruction from a higher prosecutor's office to reopen an investigation when it finds the original non-indictment decision to be incorrect or insufficient.

Here is how the events unfolded. Choi (age 28), who had rented an officetel in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, was unable to recover their deposit of 148 million won after the lease contract ended in April 2023. Choi had subscribed to the Jeonse Deposit Return Guarantee provided by the Korea Housing & Urban Guarantee Corporation (HUG), and two months later received the deposit from HUG and repaid their loan.

Then, in September 2024, one year and three months later, Choi received an unexpected call from HUG. HUG asked, "Did you cancel the tenant's right registration?" and explained, "Since the registration has been canceled, you can request the return of the deposit again." Alarmed, Choi checked the registry and discovered that the registration of their tenant's right had been canceled six months prior.

Legal scrivener A, acting for the landlord, had prepared both the application to cancel the tenant's right registration order and the power of attorney without Choi's consent. A created a forged image of Choi's seal using Photoshop and inserted it into the electronic documents, then submitted the forged electronic documents to the court.

The tenant's right registration is the most important system for tenants to maintain their existing rights to the property and preferential repayment rights even after vacating the residence. Especially when HUG has reimbursed the deposit, it plays a pivotal role in subsequent debt collection and protection of rights. According to the legal community, cancellation of this registration could affect HUG's ability to collect claims and potentially bring renewed legal burdens upon the tenant.

When Choi raised an objection, A responded, "The new landlord was very insistent, so I proceeded with the matter urgently," and added, "Since you have already received the deposit from HUG, I believed there would be no issue with your rights even if the registration was canceled." The landlord in this incident was identified as the new owner who purchased the officetel at auction, not the previous landlord who committed the jeonse fraud.

In fact, there are many cases where landlords who have perpetrated jeonse fraud deceive former tenants by saying, "Since you have received your deposit, it's fine to cancel the tenant's right registration," and encourage them to apply for cancellation. However, Cho Hyodong, a real estate attorney at Taeyu Law Firm, pointed out, "The tenant's right registration is a mechanism that must be maintained until the guarantee insurance has fully recovered the deposit amount," and stressed, "If it is canceled without the tenant's consent, strict scrutiny of legal liability is necessary." HUG also clearly advises that the tenant's right must never be canceled even after the deposit has been returned.

The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office's non-indictment decision stated, "It is acknowledged that the accused prepared and submitted the application to the court without the accuser's consent or approval." It also confirmed that, when confronted by Choi, A sent an apology via KakaoTalk acknowledging, "It was my fault and there was significant negligence." Furthermore, the seal used in the power of attorney did not match the actual registered seal: according to the seal registration certificate, Choi's seal was oval, but the submitted power of attorney used a round seal.

Nevertheless, the prosecution concluded there was 'no charge.' The reason was that the documents in question were not on paper. The prosecution determined that A had created the application using a word processing program and uploaded the files to the electronic litigation site, but there was no evidence that the documents were ever printed and used in physical form. The logic is that unless the files were printed or used in printed form, they do not constitute 'documents' under the Criminal Act.

When asked for comment, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office declined, stating the case was not subject to public disclosure. Another prosecution official explained, "There are existing precedents that deny the document status of electronic records, which may have made it difficult to apply the charge of private document forgery. While crimes such as forgery of electronic records could be considered, in this case, the records were not independently functioning evidence within an electronic information system, so the relevant charge was also difficult to apply."

However, the precedent cited as the basis for this decision is a Supreme Court ruling from 2006-2007, before electronic documents and electronic litigation became commonplace. At that time, the Supreme Court interpreted a 'document' under the Criminal Act as 'something permanently fixed on a physical object,' and determined that image files temporarily displayed on a computer screen did not meet the requirement of permanence and thus were not considered documents.

The legal community points out that these precedents, made before the widespread adoption of smartphones, electronic documents, electronic contracts, and electronic litigation, do not fully reflect current realities. Already, a significant portion of court document submissions, real estate contracts, financial transactions, and public administration processes are based on electronic documents.

Um Jeongsook, a real estate attorney at Beopdo General Law Office, remarked, "Although the use of electronic documents has become routine, the Criminal Act is still structured around paper documents," and diagnosed, "Legislation is not keeping pace with technological advancement." Kim Sera, attorney at Law Office Yegam, also commented, "As the scope of electronic litigation systems expands, we need to reconsider the definition of a document to close the gap in legal sanctions."

Choi also pursued a civil lawsuit but lost in the first trial because the criminal court did not recognize the forgery. The Seoul Southern District Court stated in its ruling, "Whether the application was made without the applicant's consent should be determined by the enforcement court." Im Chaewon, a lawyer at Min Law Office who served as a prosecutor for 33 years, criticized, "It is a serious disconnect with public sentiment that it is difficult to punish conduct that essentially involves submitting documents to the court using another person's name without consent," and added, "Investigative authorities need to more proactively consider the legal issues."

HUG also expressed its predicament. An HUG official said, "If the cancellation of the tenant's right registration was carried out as an illegal act not due to the tenant's intention or negligence, it could be taken as a mitigating factor," but added, "Since A is currently not criminally liable, it is difficult for us to conclusively determine the illegality on our own, so further discussion is needed."

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