KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Landlord Who Knew His Motel Was Used for Prostitution Must Forfeit All Rent Collected, Supreme Court Rules

By ,

A building owner who continued renting his motel to a tenant he knew was running a prostitution operation cannot keep the rent he received during that period — even though the motel also served ordinary guests. Here are the key points.

Issue

Where a landlord knowingly rents property to a tenant operating a prostitution business, do the rental payments he receives constitute criminal proceeds subject to forfeiture — and does the fact that the motel served both ordinary and prostitution-linked guests affect that analysis?

Facts

  • In May 2017, A purchased a motel in Gwanak District, Seoul, taking over an existing lease. The tenant, B, had already received a business suspension order for running a prostitution operation at the time A acquired the building.
  • B was subsequently caught again and received a closure order in March 2018. Both the police enforcement action and a registered mail notification were directed to A, and the investigating officer also called A personally to inform him.
  • Despite this, A entered into a new lease in June 2019 — this time in the name of B’s spouse — allowing the operation to continue.
  • A was charged with violating the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic.

Lower Court Decisions

  • The trial court convicted A, sentenced him to one year in prison suspended for two years, and ordered forfeiture of ₩232.7 million — the total rent collected during the offense period.
  • The appellate court upheld the conviction and suspended sentence but overturned the forfeiture. It reasoned that because the motel served both ordinary guests and prostitution-linked customers, it was impossible to specifically calculate what portion of the tenant’s revenue was derived from prostitution — and therefore the forfeiture could not be calculated.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The Supreme Court (Criminal Division 3, presiding Justice Oh Seok-jun) reversed the appellate decision on June 24, 2026, and remanded to Seoul Central District Court.
  • The court upheld the conviction and suspended sentence as legally correct.
  • On forfeiture, however, the court found the appellate court had fundamentally misidentified what was subject to forfeiture.
  • The subject of forfeiture is not the tenant’s motel revenue — it is the rent that A himself received in exchange for providing the land and building knowing they would be used for prostitution. That rent constitutes actual profit obtained through the offense of facilitating sexual traffic.
  • The fact that the tenant’s guest mix could not be precisely apportioned between ordinary and prostitution-linked customers is irrelevant to this analysis. A’s rent was not calculated by reference to the tenant’s revenue breakdown — it was a fixed contractual payment for the use of the property. That payment is what A obtained through the offense, and that is what must be forfeited.
  • Because the appellate court had omitted the forfeiture entirely rather than reducing it, the Supreme Court could not surgically correct only the forfeiture element and was required to reverse the entire appellate decision.

Key Takeaways

  • A landlord who knowingly rents property for use as a prostitution venue is liable under the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic — even if the property also serves legitimate customers.
  • The forfeiture calculation targets the landlord’s rent receipts, not the operator’s prostitution-derived revenue. This distinction is critical: the landlord’s profit from the offense is the rent itself, regardless of what the tenant earned or how the tenant’s earnings were mixed.
  • Difficulty in apportioning the operator’s revenue between lawful and unlawful purposes does not affect the landlord’s forfeiture exposure, since the landlord’s benefit — rent — is not derived from or tied to that revenue split.
  • Notice of illegal activity — whether by registered mail or direct police communication — removes any doubt about the landlord’s knowledge, and entering into a new lease after such notice is strong evidence of continued knowing participation in the offense.
  • Forfeiture and sentence are treated as severable elements in principle, but where a lower court omits forfeiture entirely, the entire judgment must be reversed rather than selectively corrected.

Why This Matters

This ruling closes what might otherwise have been a significant gap in the forfeiture framework for property-facilitated offenses: the argument that mixed-use operations make criminal proceeds impossible to calculate. By anchoring forfeiture to the landlord’s own contractual benefit — the rent — rather than to the operator’s revenue, the Supreme Court ensures that the profitability of the legitimate side of a mixed-use operation cannot shield the landlord from consequences. For property owners, the decision is a clear warning that continuing to collect rent after being formally notified of illegal activity on the premises is not a passive act — it is knowing participation in that activity, with all the criminal and financial consequences that entails.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=224647

Leave a comment