In Korea the broker’s fee is usually discovered after the contract is signed. Open the statute, though, and the rates turn out to be ceilings, not list prices — and the words “shall be determined by mutual agreement” are in the text itself. Negotiating is not a custom; it is the procedure the rule describes.
1. What will it cost. The rates are ceilings, not list prices. Housing is set by provincial ordinance and everything else by ministerial rule (Act art. 32(4)) — for shops and land the text itself says “within 9/1,000 (0.9%) of the transaction price.”
2. Can I negotiate. Yes. Enforcement Rule art. 20(1) says the amount “shall be determined by mutual agreement” — negotiating is the procedure the rule describes, not a custom. And if the agent's own intent or negligence voids the deal, no fee is due (Act art. 32(1) proviso).
3. What if they overcharge. Charging above the ceiling is not an administrative fine but a criminal offence — up to one year's imprisonment or a KRW 10m fine (art. 33(1)3 → art. 49(1)10). Complaints go to the city or district office where the agency is located.
Which rule governs my deal
Act Article 32(4) Matters necessary for the fee on brokering housing (including its land) and the limits on actual expenses shall be prescribed by ordinance of a Special City, Metropolitan City, Do or Special Self-Governing Do (“City/Do”) within the range prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the fee on brokering property other than housing shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry.
| Property | Who sets the ceiling | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Housing (incl. its land) | City/Do ordinance, within Rule table 1 | Act art. 32(4) / Rule art. 20(1) |
| Officetel — 85 sqm or less + private kitchen, flush toilet and bathing facility | Rate range in Rule table 2 | Rule art. 20(4)1 |
| Everything else (retail, land, officetels failing the test) | Within 9/1000 (0.9%) of the price | Rule art. 20(4)2 |
“Rates are set by provincial ordinance” is true only for housing. Retail units and land go through ministerial rule instead, and that rule states the figure directly: “within 9/1000 of the transaction price.”
Officetels are conditional — 85 sqm or less with a private kitchen, private flush toilet and bathing facility. Fail the test and you are on the 0.9% track.
Shop-houses split by floor area (Rule art. 20(6)) — housing at half or more of the area uses the housing rule; under half uses the other rule.
Tables 1 and 2 are set out just below — annexed tables do not appear on the per-article page, which kept this spot blank for a long time, but the appended-table viewer opens them.
So what is the number — appended table 1
The tables do not appear on the article-level pages, which is why this spot stayed blank for so long. We opened them this time through the appended-table viewer — table 1 is the “ceiling rates for housing brokerage” (inserted 19 October 2021), table 2 the “officetel brokerage rates”.
Sale or exchange
| Price | Ceiling rate | Cap |
|---|---|---|
| under KRW 50m | 0.6% | KRW 250k |
| KRW 50m to KRW 200m | 0.5% | KRW 800k |
| KRW 200m to KRW 900m | 0.4% | — |
| KRW 900m to KRW 1,200m | 0.5% | — |
| KRW 1,200m to KRW 1,500m | 0.6% | — |
| KRW 1,500m and over | 0.7% | — |
Lease and the rest
| Price | Ceiling rate | Cap |
|---|---|---|
| under KRW 50m | 0.5% | KRW 200k |
| KRW 50m to KRW 100m | 0.4% | KRW 300k |
| KRW 100m to KRW 600m | 0.3% | — |
| KRW 600m to KRW 1,200m | 0.4% | — |
| KRW 1,200m to KRW 1,500m | 0.5% | — |
| KRW 1,500m and over | 0.6% | — |
Officetels have their own table 2 — 0.5% on a sale, 0.4% on a lease, no cap. That rate applies only if the unit is 85 sqm or less with a private kitchen, flush toilet and bathing facility; fail the test and you are back on the 0.9% track above.
The caps exist to join the bands
Work out why the caps are the amounts they are and the design shows. At KRW 50m the previous band’s cap of 250,000 and the next band’s 0.5% are the same number. At 200m, 800,000 and 0.4% match too. Lease does the same at 50m and 100m.
Which means the cap starts biting well inside the band, not at its edge — from about KRW 41.7m on a sale (250,000 ÷ 0.6%) and from KRW 160m (800,000 ÷ 0.5%). For a lease, 40m and 75m. Above those points a higher price does not raise the fee.
At KRW 900m the ceiling jumps 900,000
The upper bands are not smooth, because there is no cap where the sale rate steps from 0.4% to 0.5% at KRW 900m.
| Price | Ceiling rate | Ceiling per side |
|---|---|---|
| KRW 899m | 0.4% | KRW 3,596,000 |
| KRW 900m | 0.5% | KRW 4,500,000 |
One million won more on the price, and the ceiling moves by more than 900,000. The same shape appears at 1,200m and 1,500m, and on a lease at 600m. But it is the ceiling that jumped, not the bill — an ordinance sits above it and the actual figure is negotiated within that. Near 900m, read it as the room to negotiate having widened.
Can I ask for less
Rule Article 20(1) The fee for brokering housing under Act Article 32(4) shall be received from each of the two parties separately, and the limit receivable from one party is as set out in table 1; the amount shall be determined by mutual agreement between the client and the agent, within the rate limit prescribed by City/Do ordinance.
- “Determined by mutual agreement” is the operative wording. It is not “here is a ceiling, haggle if you dare” — the rule is built around the amount being agreed.
- It is “from each of the two parties separately.” Seller and buyer each pay; table 1’s limit is what may be taken from one party.
- Agree before signing. The rule fixes no time for the agreement, and the timing of payment is delegated to Presidential Decree (Act art. 32(3)). We did not open that Decree provision.
- What if the office is in a different province from the property? Rule Article 20(3) answers: the standard is “the ordinance of the City/Do with jurisdiction over the location of the brokerage office.” Not where the property is — where the office is.
How is monthly rent counted
Rule Article 20(5) … the transaction price shall be calculated as follows:
1. Where a lease has rent in addition to a deposit, the transaction price is the deposit plus the monthly rent multiplied by 100. Provided, that where that sum is under KRW 50m, the transaction price is the deposit plus the monthly rent multiplied by 70.
2. For an exchange contract, the transaction price is the value of the larger property.
3. Where two or more transactions including a sale are made on the same property between the same parties on the same occasion, only the sale price applies.
| Deal type | Transaction price | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Sale | The sale price | — |
| Jeonse (deposit only) | The deposit | — |
| Monthly rent — converted sum KRW 50m or more | Deposit + (rent × 100) | Rule art. 20(5)1 |
| Monthly rent — converted sum under KRW 50m | Deposit + (rent × 70) | |
| Exchange | Value of the larger property | Same para., 2 |
| Same property, parties and occasion, two or more deals | Only the sale price | Same para., 3 |
Worked through — a KRW 10m deposit with KRW 500,000 rent gives 10m + (500,000 × 100) = KRW 60m, which is over 50m, so 60m stands. But a KRW 5m deposit with KRW 300,000 rent gives 5m + 30m = 35m, under 50m, so it recalculates as 5m + (300,000 × 70) = KRW 26m (our own calculation). The proviso pushes the price down. The conversion itself is covered in our deposit-to-rent converter.
Draw the proviso out and the line does not slope smoothly — it breaks once.
Who pays the actual expenses
Act Article 32(2) An agent may receive from a client the actual expenses incurred in verifying the rights over the property or in securing performance of the obligation to return the deposit.
Rule Article 20(2) … the limit on actual expenses shall be that cost, and the agent may bill it, attaching receipts, to the client seeking to transfer rights by sale or lease (or, in the case of expenses for securing return of the deposit, to the client seeking to acquire rights by purchase or lease).
- There are only two categories of expense — verifying rights and securing return of the deposit. The statute lists nothing else.
- The billing target differs — rights verification goes to the seller or landlord; deposit-return security goes to the buyer or tenant. Charging a tenant for the register search does not match the wording.
- “Attaching receipts” is a condition. Taking money as “expenses” with no receipt does not meet the rule. Pulling the register yourself is covered in our property register guide.
The statute names two expenses, and each is billed to the opposite party.
What if they charge above the ceiling
Act Article 33(1) An agent shall not do any of the following:
3. Receiving money or goods in excess of the fee or actual expenses under Article 32, under any name whatsoever, including gratuity or gift
Act Article 49(1) Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine not exceeding KRW 10m:
10. A person who violates Article 33(1)1 through 4
“Under any name whatsoever” is the key phrase — contract drafting fee, document handling fee, gratuity, thank-you money: any label is still an overcharge. The statute pre-empts the naming game.
And Article 49(1)10 connects it to up to one year’s imprisonment or a KRW 10m fine. Criminal, not administrative.
For non-housing there is also a disclosure duty (Rule art. 20(7)) — the agent must state the ceiling rate they actually intend to charge on the posted rate and limit table and may not exceed it. Photograph the table on the office wall and you have your evidence.
| Type of payment | What the statute allows | If breached |
|---|---|---|
| Brokerage fee | By agreement, within the ordinance / table / 0.9% ceiling | Up to 1 year’s imprisonment or KRW 10m fine (art. 33(1)3 → art. 49(1)10) |
| Actual expenses | Only rights verification and deposit-return security, with receipts | |
| Drafting fees, document fees, gratuities | Not in the statute — caught by “any name whatsoever” | Same provision |
Is a fee due if the deal falls apart
Act Article 32(1) An agent shall receive the prescribed fee from the client for brokerage services. Provided, that this shall not apply where the transaction between the clients is void, cancelled or rescinded due to the agent’s intent or negligence.
One proviso flips the outcome. If the agent’s intent or negligence made the deal void, cancelled or rescinded, no fee is due. The test for “intent or negligence” is not in the statute, and we did not check case law.
By-laws do open — we opened Seoul's
Below, this piece says “ordinances do not open as statutory articles on that site.” That was wrong. They open under “local rules” rather than “statutes” — what was blocked was the route, not the document.
Seoul Metropolitan Government By-law on Housing Brokerage Fees [in force 30 December 2022] [Seoul By-law No. 8585]
Article 2 (Brokerage fee) (1) The ceiling on the fee for brokering housing under Article 32(4) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act shall be as in appendix 1.
(2) The fee shall be the amount agreed in the brokerage contract between the client and the agent, within the ceiling in appendix 1.
We opened that appendix 1 in the appendix viewer. The numbers are identical to the Rule's appendix 1 — sale and exchange at 0.6% (cap KRW 250,000) / 0.5% (800,000) / 0.4% / 0.5% / 0.6% / 0.7%, leases at 0.5% (200,000) / 0.4% (300,000) / 0.3% / 0.4% / 0.5% / 0.6%, with the same bands. Its single note reads “where the rate times the price exceeds the cap, the cap applies.”
Seoul did not go lower. So for a Seoul contract the table above is the ceiling. That is one province opened, though, and says nothing about the rest.
Gyeonggi's by-law ([in force 26 September 2025] Gyeonggi By-law No. 8643) settles one more thing in words: Article 2, “the fee for brokering housing shall be received from each of both clients under appendix 1.” The rate table is a per-side ceiling, and here a provision says so. Gyeonggi's appendix 1, however, would not open in the viewer, so its figures are unverified.
Questions that keep splitting opinion
Can I ask for a discount?
The rule says the amount is “determined by mutual agreement” (Rule art. 20(1)). It is closer to setting the fee than cutting it. That said, the rule fixes no time for the agreement, so settle it before signing.
Can VAT be added on top?
The Act and the Rule still say nothing. This time we opened the Value-Added Tax Act.
Value-Added Tax Act, Article 31 (Collection on supply) Where a business supplies goods or services, it shall collect from the recipient the value-added tax computed by applying the Article 30 rate to the supply value under Article 29(1).
Article 30 (Rate) The rate of value-added tax shall be 10 per cent.
“Shall collect,” not “may charge.” Brokerage is a service, so on the structure of the text the fee and the VAT are separate amounts — the rate table caps the supply value, and the VAT Act sits on top of it. Nothing in the Agents Act, and nothing in the single note to Seoul's appendix 1, mentions VAT at all.
How a simplified taxpayer differs is in Article 61 onwards, which we again did not open. We do not assert an answer there.
Does the fee count as a necessary expense for capital gains tax?
Nothing in this Act addresses that. Deductibility is governed by the Income Tax Act — see our capital gains tax guide. Either way, no receipt means no claim.
How is a pre-completion apartment right calculated?
Rule Article 20(5) has no subparagraph for it. The common “amount paid so far plus premium” explanation is not confirmed by this provision, so we do not state it.
Can I get an overpayment back?
Article 33 stops at “shall not,” and contains no sentence about restitution. We could not confirm the basis for recovering an overpayment. What is confirmed is that it is a criminal offence under Article 49(1)10. Pre-contract checks are in our apartment purchase guide and jeonse contract checklist.
The rate is a ceiling, not a list price, and the rule says the amount inside it is determined by agreement. Whatever name it is given, taking more than the ceiling is a criminal offence.
Sources
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Licensed Real Estate Agents Act Enforcement Rule, Article 20 (Limits on Fees and Expenses). Source of paragraph (1) “determined by mutual agreement,” (2) on who is billed, (3) on the office’s location, (4) on officetels and the 0.9% cap, (5) on transaction price, (6) on shop-houses, and (7) on disclosure.
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, Article 32 (Brokerage Fees). Source of the paragraph (1) proviso, paragraph (2) on expenses, and paragraph (4) splitting housing and non-housing.
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 33 (Prohibited Acts). Source of paragraph (1)3, “under any name whatsoever … in excess.”
- Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center — statutory text — Same Act, Article 49 (Penal Provisions). Basis for paragraph (1)10 connecting Article 33(1)1–4 to one year’s imprisonment or a KRW 10m fine.
- National Law Information Center — local rules — Seoul Metropolitan Government By-law on Housing Brokerage Fees ([in force 30 December 2022] By-law No. 8585). Article 2 and appendix 1 (amended 30 December 2021) were opened in the appendix viewer and compared with the Rule's appendix 1 — bands, rates and caps all match.
- National Law Information Center — local rules — Gyeonggi-do By-law on Housing Brokerage Fees ([in force 26 September 2025] By-law No. 8643). Source of Article 2, “from each of both clients.” Its appendix 1 would not open in the viewer.
- National Law Information Center — statutory text — Licensed Real Estate Agents Act Enforcement Decree, Article 27-2. Source of “as agreed; absent agreement, the day payment of the purchase price is completed.” In force 28 August 2026, Presidential Decree No. 36590.
- National Law Information Center — statutory text — Value-Added Tax Act, Article 31 and Article 30. Source of “shall collect from the recipient” and “10 per cent.”
- Ministry of Government Legislation — the appended tables — table 1, ceiling rates for housing brokerage (under art. 20(1), inserted 19 October 2021) and table 2, officetel brokerage rates (under art. 20(4)). The two rate tables and the caps here are the table text itself; the points where a cap starts to bite and the steps at 900m, 1,200m and 1,500m are our own arithmetic.
Where to check further
- By-laws outside Seoul and Gyeonggi. They open on the Law Information Center under “local rules” — search “[province] housing brokerage fee by-law”. We checked Seoul alone down to its appendix (identical to the Rule's) and opened none of the others.
- Gyeonggi's appendix 1. The articles opened but the appendix viewer did not, so its figures are unverified — the province's own “brokerage fee rate table” is quicker.
- VAT for a simplified taxpayer. Collection itself is settled by VAT Act Article 31, but how a simplified taxpayer differs sits in Article 61 onwards, which we did not open.
Written in August 2026 and revisited in September. All quotations are the statutory text as published by the National Law Information Center, and what we could not confirm is listed separately above. On the September pass we corrected “ordinances do not open” (they open under local rules), and filled in the payment date at Decree article 27-2 and VAT at Value-Added Tax Act articles 31 and 30. Housing rates are set by City/Do by-law and may differ by region — Seoul matched the Rule's appendix 1, but before signing, check the by-law for the province where the brokerage office is located. Disputes can be raised with the local district office. This article is general information, not legal advice.
