Would opening 9% below asking on this Seoul studio be too aggressive?

H

HanaBirch

Seller
One detail is making tonight’s decision harder: I still cannot find enough completed sales to judge a Seoul studio listed at ₩296,700,000. It has been advertised for 37 days, and its condition suggests some updating, although similar nearby listings are asking around the same level.

I’m considering an opening offer 9% lower. I can show that financing is available and accommodate the seller’s preferred completion timing, but I do not want to surrender inspection, appraisal or financing protection. I’m also concerned about what happens to the deposit if a problem emerges.

Would you present the offer simply as the price that works given the condition and limited sales evidence, or first try to establish why the seller is moving? The deadline may be making the listing feel more urgent than it really is.
 
One clarification: I don’t yet have a dependable estimate for the updating, which is part of my hesitation. I’ve asked about completed comparables and the seller’s preferred timing, but I don’t want the deadline to push me into treating missing information as good news.
 
Nine percent below is ₩269,997,000, so effectively ₩270,000,000. That looks more deliberate than an odd discount. Keep the explanation short: condition, limited completed-sale evidence and your ability to provide financing proof and accommodate timing. Don’t write a prosecution brief against the property.
 
I wouldn’t read much into 37 days by itself. It could mean the seller is flexible, or simply that they are prepared to wait. Comparable asking prices also tell you what other sellers want, not what buyers paid. The offer is defensible, but seller motivation matters more than the listing age.
 
The 9% reduction has two very different consequences depending on the condition. If the studio only needs new finishes, ₩270,000,000 may look like a firm negotiating position; if there are unresolved defects, that price could still leave the buyer exposed.

I would not attach a repair figure until there is an inspection report or at least a written scope of work and quotations. Explain the offer by reference to the uncertainty, while keeping the inspection protection that allows the price or terms to be revisited if the evidence reveals something substantial.
 
Daan and Clara are pointing to the same weakness: you lack both completed prices and a repair estimate. That supports opening lower, but it also means ₩270,000,000 isn’t objectively proven. Present it as the price that works for you given the uncertainty, not as the studio’s indisputable value.
 
I would not waive financing or the ability to investigate the property’s condition. Have the contract and deposit consequences explained by someone familiar with the transaction in Seoul before signing. A flexible completion date is useful consideration; taking unknown financial exposure is not.
 
Also decide what happens if an appraisal comes in below the agreed price. “Clean financing” can sound stronger than it really is if your available funds cannot comfortably cover a gap. Set the maximum gap you could absorb before negotiating, rather than making that decision under pressure later.
 
I’d avoid combining a 9% discount with a vague demand for repair credits. That can feel like asking twice for the same uncertainty. Either price the visible updating into the opening offer, or reserve discussion of newly discovered problems for after inspection.
 
Pay particular attention to deposit exposure. The consequences of withdrawing can depend on the wording and stage of the agreement, so don’t assume a financing or inspection concern automatically releases the deposit. Get the actual clauses explained in the relevant South Korean context before committing funds.
 
Yes, and that is another reason not to use “clean” as shorthand for “no protection.” You can provide evidence that financing is credible while making the offer expressly subject to the protections you need. Those are separate points.
 
Is tonight a genuine seller-imposed response deadline, or only the point when you hoped to decide? If it’s the latter, ask for enough time to review the missing information. A property sitting for 37 days does not become understandable because a buyer gives themselves one evening.
 
Ask one simple motivation question: does the seller care more about price, timing or certainty? You may not receive a candid answer, but their response can guide the offer. Your flexible completion date has little value if timing is irrelevant to them.
 
I’d put ₩270,000,000 in writing with financing proof available, your proposed protections clearly stated, and two possible completion windows if you genuinely can accommodate both. Then stop explaining. The seller can reject, accept or counter; a long justification gives them more details to argue with.
 
On inspection, protect the ability to respond to significant findings rather than implying every worn finish should reopen the price. The visible updating is already part of your offer rationale. The protection is for what you cannot reasonably assess now.
 
I slightly disagree with the emphasis on constructing a rationale. Sellers rarely need to be persuaded that a lower price is mathematically valid; they need to decide whether it beats waiting. Be courteous, state the terms and avoid comments that sound like criticism of their home.
 
Plan your counteroffer before submitting. If ₩270,000,000 is only an opener, know your actual ceiling and whether that ceiling changes after an appraisal or inspection. Otherwise a small counter can pull you upward repeatedly without any new information.
 
The one-night pressure worries me more than the 9%. Missing completed sales, uncertain renovation costs and unclear deposit exposure are three separate unknowns. If you cannot resolve them tonight, the sensible next step may be an offer with protections—not waiving them to meet an artificial sense of urgency.
 
For the financing proof, provide enough to demonstrate credibility without casually circulating more personal financial information than necessary. Ask the party handling the transaction what form is appropriate. Strong proof may improve reception of the offer, but it does not make appraisal risk disappear.
 
If completed comparables arrive, focus on the closest matches in the same building or genuinely similar nearby properties, then account for condition and timing rather than averaging everything together. Even one relevant completed transaction may be more informative than several current listings, though it still won’t dictate the seller’s answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top