"It's Not Ahn Yujin's Fault"... Why Young People Feel Bitter About Her Housing Lottery Win

"Legal Lottery" vs. "Only the Cash-Rich Can Participate"

The Core of the Controversy Is the System, Not the Winners

"Youth Lament: Cash Matters More Than Qualifications"

Reports that Ahn Yujin, a member of the girl group IVE, won the lottery allocation for “The H Bangbae,” a reconstructed apartment in Bangbae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, have reignited debates over the fairness of Korea’s housing subscription system.

On July 14, several media outlets including Maeil Business Newspaper cited sources in the real estate industry, reporting that Ahn Yujin had been selected for the general lottery allocation for “The H Bangbae (Bangbae 5 District Reconstruction Project),” which is slated for move-in this September. However, as of now, there has been no official confirmation regarding whether Ahn Yujin was indeed selected or about her specific unit type. Her agency also stated that, as it is a personal matter, they are unable to verify the facts.

Girl group IVE member Ahn Yujin. Ahn Yujin Instagram

Regardless of the truth, the news that Ahn Yujin was selected has sparked controversy about the fairness of the current housing subscription system. A system originally intended to help housing-insecure ordinary citizens buy homes has, in reality, turned into a “lottery ticket” for some high-income earners and wealthy individuals who possess billions of won in available cash. In particular, the current debate focuses on the system’s loopholes, criticizing how the enormous price gap of high-end pre-sale units is distributed and who gets to benefit.

The Bangbae “lottery” attracts 90,000 applicants… 84㎡ unit trades for KRW 3,692,950,000

First, “The H Bangbae” is a large-scale complex developed through the reconstruction of Bangbae 5 District, featuring 29 buildings with 33 floors above ground and 4 basement levels, for a total of 3,064 units. During the general sale in August 2024, 1,244 units were supplied, and, including special housing allocations and first-priority subscriptions, about 90,000 people applied. The average competition rate for first-priority was 90.2 to 1, and some unit types saw over 200 to 1. At the time, the highest pre-sale prices by exclusive area were KRW 1,725,000,000 for a 59㎡ unit, KRW 2,243,000,000 for an 84㎡ unit, KRW 2,500,000,000 for a 101㎡ unit, and KRW 2,762,000,000 for a 114㎡ unit. Due to the price ceiling system and the lack of a required occupancy period, significant price premiums were anticipated, resulting in high demand for subscriptions.

According to real estate information providers citing Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport transaction data, rights to an 84㎡ unit traded for KRW 3,692,950,000 in April 2026.

Compared to the highest pre-sale price, this represents an increase of about KRW 1,450,000,000. The current asking price being discussed in the market is around KRW 4,000,000,000. However, since it has not been confirmed that Ahn Yujin was selected for an 84㎡ unit, the “KRW 1,800,000,000 profit” estimate is calculated based on specific unit types and prospective prices only.

The core controversy centers on the gap between eligibility for selection and the actual ability to complete a contract. For this complex’s 84㎡ units, the initial payment required was 20% of the pre-sale price—about KRW 450,000,000 in cash just to sign the contract. Since interim payment interest was not deferred, even with a loan, the interest burden would be considerable. Therefore, to secure the final installment, a much larger amount of personal capital than the deposit would be necessary, meaning in practice, only those who already have significant liquid assets could realistically participate—a key criticism.

The Korea Development Institute pointed out that the current subscription system favors middle-aged and older adults with relatively long periods of being without a home and children, while it operates disadvantageously for the youth. The Asia Business Daily

On social media and various online communities, comments such as “Ordinary young people can’t sustain a contract even if they win the lottery,” “Having an open lottery opportunity and actually being able to purchase are totally different matters,” and “The price ceiling system has become a way to transfer tens of billions of won in profit to those already rich” have appeared.

There are also some opposing opinions. Some argue that as long as existing regulations do not restrict general subscription due to occupation or income, it is inappropriate to criticize someone for winning the lottery through the same process if they meet the requirements. One netizen insisted, “If rules are not broken, you can’t question the legitimacy of the result based on an individual’s wealth or job; the real issue lies in the price ceiling system and supply structure, not with the individual participants.”

Younger homebuyers are disadvantaged in point allocation and capital requirements—homeownership a distant dream

The main complaint of today’s younger generation amid this controversy is that they face structural disadvantages in both the scoring and lottery systems. The scoring system consists of a total of 84 points, including 32 points for duration without homeownership, 35 points for number of dependents, and 17 points for length of subscription savings. For young people and newlyweds, who typically have shorter non-ownership periods and fewer dependents, it’s very difficult to achieve a high score in popular areas. The lottery system technically offers opportunities to the young, but in high-priced complexes, billions to tens of billions of won in personal capital are needed—so financial means again becomes the decisive factor after “winning.”

This skepticism is reflected in the growing abandonment of the housing subscription savings account. According to analysis by Hankook Ilbo of subscription home data, at the end of November 2025, the number of account holders decreased by 48,744 from the previous month. Due to soaring pre-sale prices, high point thresholds, and tightening of lending regulations, the so-called “subscription account is meaningless” view is spreading, particularly among people in their 20s and 30s.

The biggest complaint among the current young generation regarding this controversy is that they feel structural limitations in both the point-based and lottery systems. The point-based system is composed of a total of 84 points: 32 points for the period of not owning a home, 35 points for the number of dependents, and 17 points for the subscription period to the subscription savings account. The Asia Business Daily

KDI also pointed out that the current subscription system favors middle-aged and older adults with longer periods of housing non-ownership and children, while it operates disadvantageously for the youth. If young people give up on subscriptions and instead turn to gap investments in existing homes or excessive borrowing, there is a risk of escalating household debt.

The market identifies the root cause of the “lottery subscription” phenomenon as the extreme gap between pre-sale prices and surrounding market prices. When the price ceiling system lowers pre-sale prices far below market value, development profits of hundreds of millions to billions of won are concentrated on a single successful applicant, driving both competition and speculative expectations. For this reason, some suggest that pre-sale prices should be adjusted closer to market value, and that profits generated through land price appreciation or higher floor area ratios should be reclaimed and used for public and youth housing funds. By narrowing the price gap, the “lottery effect” would be reduced, and overheated competition in subscription would also be eased.

However, simply abolishing the price ceiling would raise pre-sale prices, making it even more difficult for young people and non-homeowners to access housing, and profits would concentrate among developers and association members. In fact, in regions where the price ceiling has mostly been lifted, the average pre-sale price in Seoul in 2024 surpassed the average market price of existing apartments, due to a combination of rising construction and financing costs.

Some argue that expanding support for loans to real end-users could help. If long-term fixed-rate or policy mortgages are made available to young non-homeowners and newlyweds with adequate repayment ability, it could mitigate the gap caused by parental assistance or existing cash holdings. However, easing LTV and DSR for everyone risks reigniting property price increases and higher household debt. There are also fairness concerns about whether offering large loans to buyers of high-priced homes is truly serving the goal of supporting the housing needs of ordinary people.

Housing subscriptions are a “zero-sum” game… why comprehensive reform is so difficult

The general allocation of privately developed housing today is run via a combination of a scoring system based on period of non-ownership, number of dependents, and subscription savings period, and a random lottery system. In speculative-bidding zones, 60% of units under 60 square meters, 30% of units between 60 and 85 square meters, and 20% of units over 85 square meters are distributed by lottery. Among these, a significant percentage of lottery units are prioritized for non-homeowners.

In the market, the fundamental cause of the 'lottery subscription' is found in the excessively large gap between the sale price and the surrounding market price. Under the price ceiling system for sale prices, when the sale price is significantly lower than the market price, tens of millions to hundreds of millions of won in development profits concentrate on a single winning bidder, leading to increased competition rates and speculative expectations. The Asia Business Daily

However, private housing subscription in principle sets no upper limit on income or financial assets. Even if you own billions of won in deposit assets or commercial property and financial assets, if you do not own a home, you are considered a non-homeowner. This repeatedly raises the question of whether it is reasonable for a person who is “legally” non-homeowner but not in actual need to receive the same policy support as a true low-asset, real end-user.

On the other hand, introducing income or asset criteria even for general allocation may unfairly penalize non-homeowners who have diligently maintained their subscription savings for years and saved to buy a home. There is also the potential for new injustices if high-income dual-earner households, who still cannot realistically afford homes in Seoul, are excluded. Because the subscription system is inherently a system for allocating a limited supply, any expansion of opportunity for one group necessarily reduces opportunity for another—making it a fundamentally “zero-sum” game and explaining the administration’s reluctance for sweeping reform.

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