[Edaily Kang Gyeong-rok Travel Reporter] Opposition to the government’s proposed reforms to the casino licensing and tourism fund systems is spreading beyond the casino industry to the broader tourism sector, including hotels, travel, and MICE (Meetings, Incentives, Conferences, and Exhibitions). Following the casino industry’s opposition to the increase in the contribution rate to the Tourism Promotion and Development Fund and the introduction of a five-year license renewal system, 12 tourism-related organizations have joined forces to respond. The focus of the controversy is narrowing down to how much the public burden on the casino industry should be increased and what level of licensing stability should be guaranteed for integrated resort projects, which require large-scale, long-term investment.
Twelve tourism-related organizations—including the Korea Tourism Association, the Korea Hotel Association, the Korea Travel Agents Association, the Korea MICE Association, and the Korea Casino Tourism Association—issued a joint statement on the 3rd, demanding that the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism withdraw its proposed “five-year casino license renewal system” and its plan to raise the cap on contributions to the Tourism Promotion and Development Fund from the current 10% to 15%. The fact that other tourism sectors—including hotels, travel agencies, MICE, theme parks, condos, and professional conference organizers (PCOs)—have joined the joint statement regarding the casino regulatory overhaul demonstrates that the regulatory debate is spreading to investment issues across the entire tourism industry.

The first issue raised by the industry is the method of levying the Tourism Promotion and Development Fund. Casino operators pay the fund based on revenue rather than net income. The tourism industry argued, “Even though about half of domestic casino operators have recorded operating losses at some point over the past decade, they have been required to pay the fund regardless of their operating performance.” The industry’s logic is that under this structure, raising the maximum contribution rate from 10% to 15% could also increase the burden on operators running at a loss. Looking solely at the cap, this represents a 5 percentage point increase—a 50% rise compared to the existing cap.
However, this reform proposal does not uniformly raise the actual contribution rate for all casino operators to 15%. What the industry opposes is the direction that would allow the maximum contribution rate for the Tourism Promotion and Development Fund to be raised to 15%. The actual increase in the burden for each operator may vary depending on future details such as revenue brackets and the method of application.
The reform of the licensing system is a contentious issue regarding investment stability. The tourism industry argues that “if a five-year renewal system is introduced, it could increase uncertainty surrounding investments in integrated resorts, which require massive capital.” Since integrated resorts—which combine hotels, convention centers, and shopping and entertainment facilities—take a long time from project preparation to return on investment, the license term could become a key variable in investment decisions.
The tourism industry argued that “new investments in integrated resorts and infrastructure, which cost from hundreds of billions to trillions of won, are impossible without guaranteed business stability,” adding that requiring license renewals every five years could dampen efforts to attract foreign capital and new investments. Citing the fact that existing operators have invested on the assumption of long-term operations, the industry maintains that the legal stability of existing operators must also be considered during the process of introducing the renewal system.
The industrial structure of integrated resorts lies at the heart of why the debate over casino regulations has spread to the tourism industry. Casinos have evolved beyond standalone facilities into a business model that combines investment in and operation of tourism facilities such as hotels, international conference centers, shopping, and entertainment venues. This is why tourism organizations defined casino regulations in their joint statement not merely as an issue for casino operators, but as a matter of investment in tourism infrastructure.
There are also significant differences in perspective regarding international competition. The tourism industry argued, “As Asian countries such as Singapore, Macau, the Philippines, and Japan are expanding their integrated resort markets, tightening domestic regulations at the same time could put us at a disadvantage in the competition to attract investment.” The statement also noted that tightening domestic regulations could widen the competitiveness gap with overseas integrated resorts. However, since countries around the world differ in terms of casino licensing periods, taxes and funds, and operator eligibility reviews, it is difficult to assess competitive conditions based solely on a comparison of the strictness of regulations.
This joint response is significant in that it broadens the scope of the arguments against stricter regulations—which had previously been centered on the casino industry—to include investment and employment issues within the tourism sector. Organizations from various sectors—including the Korea Tourism Association, the Korea Hotel Association, the Korea Travel Agents Association, and the Korea MICE Association, as well as groups representing theme parks, condos, PCOs, cruise ships, and camping—signed the statement. They demanded the withdrawal of the five-year license renewal system, the reversal of the plan to raise the cap on the tourism fund contribution rate, and a shift toward field-centered growth policies.
Going forward, the focus is likely to shift from whether the system will be introduced at all to its specific design. Regarding the fund, factors such as revenue brackets and assessment criteria—not just the maximum contribution rate—will determine the actual burden on companies, while for the license renewal system, the renewal cycle, review criteria, and how the system applies to existing operators will be key factors. How the government balances the objectives of its proposed reforms with the industry’s concerns about stifled investment is expected to be a critical variable in the legislative process.