🇰🇷 Korea / JoongAng Ilbo – 6·27 이전 매매 계약한 수도권 10억대 아파트, 규제 발표 뒤 취소 증가 – 2025-07-17 – ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️

Following the June 27 (6·27) loan regulation announcement, the cancellation rate of apartment purchase contracts over ₩1 billion (~$730,000) in the Seoul metropolitan area has increased significantly. Data from real estate brokerage firm Jiptos reveals that 35% of the canceled contracts after the regulation involved high-value properties over ₩1 billion, up from 26.9% before the regulation. In contrast, cancellation rates decreased for properties under ₩1 billion.

Despite the fact that contracts signed before the 6·27 regulation are exempt from new loan caps, fear of falling property prices has led buyers to willingly forfeit deposits. Cancellations were especially high in affluent districts such as Gangdong, Seocho, Gangnam, Yeongdeungpo, Seongdong, and Mapo. Jiptos attributes this trend to psychological pressure on buyers, fearing they purchased at market peaks. Additionally, in lower-priced areas like Nowon and Guro, cancellations are also attributed to “youngkul” (high-leverage) buyers fearing debt and declining prices.

🧭 Integrity Evaluation under the Five Laws:

✅ Law 1 – Truthfulness of Information:
The article is grounded in timely market data from a named domestic brokerage (Jiptos) and matches recent trends in Korea's real estate sector post-regulation.

⚠️ Law 2 – Source Referencing:
While it names Jiptos as the data source, there is no direct link or citation to the actual report or dataset used, limiting traceability.

⚠️ Law 3 – Reliability & Accuracy:
The figures are plausible and segmented, but there is no methodological transparency regarding how cancellation rates were collected or defined.

⚠️ Law 4 – Contextual Judgment:
The article focuses on fear-driven cancellations and psychological responses but does not balance with structural analysis (e.g., comparison with past policy impacts or macroeconomic drivers).

⚠️ Law 5 – Inference Traceability:
Behavioral interpretations (e.g., fear of price drops, psychological burden) are speculative and not backed by surveys or primary behavioral data.

Overall Evaluation: ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️
Interpretive Risk: High — Although the article accurately captures a short-term market reaction, it lacks methodological rigor and deeper economic context, which could lead readers to overestimate panic or systemic collapse without sufficient supporting data.