MoneyLog｜부동산·경제 인사이트

“I was told it could go up to 70%, but the bank says 60%.”

After Part 1 clarified the policy framework, this became the most common follow-up question.

Even in non-regulated areas, and even for single-home owners, why does 60% keep coming up in consultations?

The key shift is this: with eviction loans today, actual execution criteria matter more than theoretical LTV limits.

This is also why explanations differ between banks, and sometimes even between branches.

In this article, we’ll focus on why 60% has become the practical benchmark, and what to check and ask before consulting a bank, based on real-world processes rather than policy text.

| Key Focus of Part 2: Execution Criteria Comes Before LTV

The biggest source of confusion in eviction loan consultations is the tendency to focus on the LTV percentage first.

Today, however, eviction loans are less about “how high the LTV is allowed” and more about how much can actually be executed, and when.

There is a clear gap between theoretical LTV limits and the criteria banks apply in real situations.

This gap explains why the same borrower may hear “up to 70%” in one consultation and “around 60%” in another.

When banks say eviction loans are reviewed under “internal criteria,” they are referring to this risk-management approach.

Understanding this shift is crucial, because focusing only on LTV numbers often delays decisions and complicates planning.

In the sections ahead, we’ll break down why 60% has become the practical benchmark and how this logic plays out in real consultations.

| Why 60% Sounds Like the New Default

In non-regulated areas, especially for single-home owners, it’s natural to expect a 70% LTV.

Yet many consultations end with a similar message: “Eviction loans are usually reviewed around 60%.”

To understand this, we need to look beyond policy limits and focus on how banks perceive eviction loans.

Internally, eviction loans are often seen as:

• ① Funds for settling an existing obligation
• ② Loans with fixed execution and repayment timing
• ③ Purpose-specific loans tied to deposit returns

Because of this structure, banks tend to manage eviction loans more conservatively than standard mortgages.

Even when higher LTVs are theoretically allowed, internal risk thresholds are often set closer to 60%.

This is not an official rule, but a widely shared internal operating judgment.

As a result, explanations may vary by branch, but the final numbers tend to converge.

In short, 60% feels like the default not because of tighter regulations, but because banks have lowered their safety margin.

| Three Common Roadblocks Seen in Real Consultations

These days, eviction loan issues rarely come down to outright rejection.

More often, the problem is that the expected funding structure no longer fits reality.

Based on real consultations, most cases fall into three patterns.

① Approved, but the amount falls short

The loan itself is possible, but the final calculation stops around 60% instead of 70%.

When the plan relied heavily on the eviction loan, even a small gap becomes a serious issue.

② The move-out date is fixed, but time is tight

With a confirmed move-out date, execution timing becomes more important than rates.

Internal reviews and document checks often leave less room than expected.

③ Conditions seem fine, but timing feels risky

Recent job changes or income gaps make applicants hesitate.

Many worry whether applying now might work against them.

What these cases share is not loan denial, but a sudden reduction in available options.

That’s why effective consultations now begin with “What’s the safest option given my current situation?”

| Three Common Deposit-Return Disruptions

In most eviction loan cases, the real issue is not the loan itself, but the breakdown of the traditional deposit-return cycle.

Recently, three patterns appear most frequently.

① Gaps caused by no immediate replacement tenant

In the past, a new tenant’s deposit often funded the refund.

Today, reduced demand and longer vacancies turn deposits into cash that landlords must secure themselves.

② Cash strain during conversion from jeonse to monthly rent

While monthly rent improves long-term cash flow, the initial deposit refund must still be paid in full.

Lower-than-expected loan limits make this transition especially challenging.

③ Disruptions caused by lower loan limits

Plans built on higher expectations can collapse when the approved amount falls short.

The key concern becomes how and when to cover the gap.

These cases share a common cause: simultaneous changes in market and financial conditions.

Unfortunately, the impact is often felt when time is already running out.

That’s why eviction loans today require rethinking the entire deposit-return strategy.

| Why Tenants Are Also Affected

Eviction loan issues are often viewed solely as a landlord’s financial problem.

In reality, they frequently create direct uncertainty and stress for tenants as well.

① Deposit return timing can become unstable

When landlords rely on eviction loans, unexpected changes in limits or execution schedules can delay deposit refunds.

For tenants with fixed move-out dates or upcoming payments, this can disrupt their entire financial plan.

② Contract chains are affected

Deposits often serve as the starting point for the next housing contract.

Delays may force tenants to postpone moves or renegotiate under pressure.

③ Lack of communication can lead to conflict

Even without bad intent, insufficient explanation can easily trigger mistrust.

This often results in unnecessary emotional strain on both parties.

Ultimately, eviction loan issues are part of a shared contractual risk affecting everyone involved.

| A Six-Point Checklist Before Consultation

In eviction loan consultations, outcomes often depend less on the bank and more on how well-prepared the borrower is.

These six items are typically reviewed first.

• ① Current outstanding mortgage balance
• ② Scheduled deposit return date
• ③ Portion of the deposit expected to be covered by the eviction loan
• ④ Any job or income changes within the past year
• ⑤ Plans for a new tenant or conversion to monthly rent
• ⑥ Alternative funding options if a shortfall occurs

If any of these are unclear, it’s better to clarify realistic limits first rather than asking whether approval is possible.

This checklist works best when reviewed at least two to three months before the contract ends.

| Practical Timeline: Starting Three Months Before Contract End

| 7 Questions You Must Ask During a Bank Consultation

1. What LTV is actually applied at execution?
2. How is my existing mortgage balance reflected?
3. Is this loan strictly limited to deposit return purposes?
4. Will recent job or income changes affect timing?
5. How long does execution usually take after approval?
6. Could branch and head-office decisions differ?
7. What is the most conservative amount I can expect?

Clear questions lead to clear boundaries.

| Warning Signs During Loan Consultations

Some answers sound positive, but actually indicate uncertainty.

• “We can submit it for now.”
• “It should be around 60%.”
• “We need head-office approval.”
• “Timing depends on the situation.”
• “Other branches will be similar.”

When these overlap, the loan is not confirmed yet.

| A Practical Timeline for Eviction Loan Preparation

| Final Thoughts: When Will You Need This Again?

Eviction loans are manageable when prepared early, but become burdensome when handled at the last minute.

This article is most useful before the contract ends, not after.

Revisit this guide:

• About three months before contract expiration
• When move-out discussions begin
• When a bank says, “Let’s submit it first”

In the next article, we’ll cover documents and evidence that actually affect loan outcomes.