B

Lease 3 Act Contract Checklist

3.60

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Existence of land management and financial APIs
→
Step 2 Problem that landlords in their 40s-60s do not accurately know the application criteria of the Lease 3 Act (renewal request right, rent increase cap, reporting system)
→
Step 3 Problem that verifying whether contract clauses comply with legal revisions requires lawyer consultation (over $225)

Competitor references

No usable source links are available for this idea. Its signal notes and scores need independent verification.

Problem

A 58-year-old landlord living on monthly rental income after retirement, when receiving a tenant's request for contract renewal, cannot accurately determine the scope of the 5% rent increase cap, grounds for refusal of renewal, and the obligation to report the lease. Internet searches mix pre- and post-revision information, causing confusion, and lawyer consultations cost over $225 per case. A wrong decision to refuse renewal can result in penalties, or conversely, failing to exercise rights can lead to losses of millions of won.

Solution

By entering the contract start date, end date, current rent, renewal request status, and housing type, it automatically determines whether the Lease 3 Act applies and clearly distinguishes 'what you can do / what you must do / what you must not do' in this case. It attaches links to the relevant legal provisions for each item and provides sample clauses to include in the contract.

Target: Individual landlords aged 45-65 operating 1-3 small-scale rental properties, who manage contracts directly without a real estate agent.
Revenue Model: Basic assessment (1 case) free. Contract clause review + clause generation: $3.75 per case. Annual landlord management (renewal reminders, legal updates): $3.70 per month.
Ecosystem Role: Regulation
MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty
2.0/5
U Urgency
4.0/5
M Market
3.0/5
R Realizability
5.0/5
V Validation
3.0/5
NUMR-V Scoring System
N Novelty1-5How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency1-5How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market1-5Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability1-5Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation1-5Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.
Each dimension is scored 1-5 and weighted into grade S/A/B/C/D.
N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20

Feasibility (73%)

Tech Complexity
32.0/40
Data Availability
20.8/25
MVP Timeline
20.0/20
API Bonus
0.0/15
Feasibility Breakdown
Tech Complexity/ 40Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability/ 25Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline/ 20Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus/ 15Bonus for viable public API leverage.
Total 100 points; below 50% is filtered out.

Market Validation (57/100)

Competition
8.0/20
Market Demand
6.2/20
Timing
14.0/20
Revenue Signals
10.5/15
Pick-Axe Fit
10.5/15
Solo Buildability
8.0/10
Validation Breakdown
Competition/ 20Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand/ 20Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing/ 20Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals/ 15Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit/ 15How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability/ 10Practicality for lean-team implementation.
Total 100 points; below 50 is filtered out.

Technical Requirements

Frontend [low] Backend [medium]
Dashboard