On April 30, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety changed the rules for where high fuel price damage support funds can be used at the 3rd pan-government TF meeting. From May 1, the support funds can be used at gas stations inside the local government area of the holder's registered address, no matter the annual sales. Before, only stores with annual sales of 3 hundred million KRW or less were allowed. The government explained that this step is to reduce people's burden from high fuel prices in a more real way. Gas stations are directly connected to the burden of fuel costs, but because of the old rule, it was hard to use the funds in many places. So there was criticism that the policy goal and the real places of use did not match. With this decision, the range of gas station use becomes wider, but the basic rule of using it inside the local area stays the same. The support funds must be used inside the local government area of the holder's registered address. The government also suggested that it may review more improvements while watching how the system works.
원문 보기
The key of this news is not 'more support funds' but 'a design fix'
At first, it looks like simple convenience news saying 'now you can use it at gas stations too.' But if you look a little more closely, this is closer to news about adjusting how to design where money that was already promised should flow than a policy that gives more money.
In Korea, these support funds are often not left to be used anywhere like cash. They are designed to be used inside the local area, and in neighborhood business areas rather than big retail, so they try to support living costs and the local economy at the same time. But high fuel price damage support funds, as the name says, should mainly reduce the burden of fuel costs, yet people could not use them at many gas stations. This contradiction was the starting point of this adjustment.
If you understand this structure, the next news will be much easier to read. In similar support fund articles later, what you really need to see is not only 'how much do they give,' but the design logic like where can it be used, why is one business type allowed but another is not, and does the policy goal match the places of use.
This change is not an increase in the support fund amount, but an adjustment of the rules for places of use.
The key question is 'why did only gas stations become an exception,' and the answer is in the conflict between policy goals and reality.
Why did 'where to use it' always become important for Korean support funds?
If you know this flow, you can understand that this gas station exception is not a sudden special benefit, but the result of Korean-style support fund design being adjusted little by little.
Step 1: In 2017, local love gift certificates started to grow seriously
Local governments started to grow local love gift certificates so money would circulate inside the area. Simply put, they looked like cash, but they were local-only money designed so they would not flow out of the region or into big retail.
Step 2: In 2018, the central government turned this method into a nationwide policy tool
Using support for areas like Gunsan and Geoje as a starting point, the central government supported part of the issuance amount, and this method grew from a local experiment into a nationwide policy tool. From this time, along with 'who gets it,' 'where it is used' also became part of policy design.
Step 3: In 2020, people across the country first really felt it through the emergency disaster relief payment
During COVID-19, many people received support money as card top-ups, prepaid cards, or local gift certificates. Right then, usage limits like 'traditional markets and restaurants are okay, but department stores, large marts, and online malls are not' became a key feature of Korean support payments.
Step 4: In 2020, the system became firm through a new law
In the same year, the 「Act on the Promotion of Use of Local Love Gift Certificates」 was enacted and took effect, so merchant registration, operating rules, and the issuing structure became clearer. If you know this, you can see that usage limits are not a temporary workaround but a system with a legal framework.
Step 5: Since 2023, they started designing it more narrowly even within the local area
It went beyond simply saying 'please use it only in our neighborhood,' and standards focused on small business owners, like annual sales of 3 billion KRW or less, started to be added. So this was a more detailed stage to make money go to places that need policy benefits more, even within the same area.
Step 6: In 2026, they adjusted the exceptions again in the high oil price support payment
But when this standard was applied as it was to the high oil price response policy, a problem came up: people could not use it at gas stations, which are exactly where they pay for fuel. So this measure did not remove the basic rule. More accurately, it redesigned the exceptions to fit the policy goal.
What is different between giving cash and making people use it only inside the local area?
| Comparison item | Cash payment | Local-restriction payment |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom of use | The highest. It can be used right away for urgent needs like living expenses, utility bills, and rent | There are limits. It must be used only in the designated area and business types |
| Policy goal | Strong for emergency living support | Strong for supporting small business owners and encouraging local spending |
| Control of money flow | It is hard for the government to control where it will be spent | It can guide spending to neighborhood business areas instead of large retailers |
| Inconvenience on site | Low. There is little need to check where to use it | There can be inconvenience because of checking member stores, business type limits, and area limits |
| Connection to this news | It is simple for directly reducing the burden of high oil prices | It keeps the policy goal, but if essential places to use it, like gas stations, are left out, a contradiction appears |
The reason many gas stations could not use it before was because of the '300M KRW standard'
The key point is simpler than you might think. It was because the places where the support payment could be used were limited to stores with annual sales of 300M KRW or less. This standard was originally made so the spending effect would go to small business owners rather than large businesses. In other words, it was not really a standard made to block gas stations on purpose. It was closer to applying the existing local currency and support payment system to gas stations in the same way.
The problem was the nature of the gas station business. At gas stations, the price per liter is high and turnover is also fast, so total sales can easily look big. But total sales do not mean big profit right away. After taxes, refinery supply prices, card fees, labor costs, and rent are taken out, many say the actual operating profit margin is around 1~2%. Simply put, even if it looks like a big store from the outside, the money left over may be less than you think.
What is important here is that sales and profit are different. The system used total sales because it needed a simple administrative standard, and the industry argued that this standard did not reflect the reality of gas stations well. If you understand this, it naturally explains why the criticism that 'it is a high oil price support payment, but you cannot use it at gas stations' became so strong.
300M KRW in sales = big profit is not true. Even if a gas station has high sales, the actual margin can be low.
This controversy was not only a gas station problem. It was also about how to apply the small business standard to different industries.
Even for the same gas stations, the situation was quite different by region
If you look at nationwide estimates and specific local examples side by side, you can understand why people felt things differently in real life even under the same standard.
The 300M KRW rule stayed, but why was there an exception only for gas stations?
| Category | Basic 300M KRW rule | Logic for the gas station exception |
|---|---|---|
| Policy goal | Focus the spending effect on small business owners and local commercial streets | Adjust the original goal of easing the burden of high oil prices to fit the real payment scene |
| Problem situation | The support effect could be spread out to businesses with large sales | A contradiction happened where it was support for fuel prices, but payment did not work at many gas stations |
| Past examples | A standard repeatedly used in local currency and policy-issued gift certificates | There were already exception cases for living infrastructure, like a Hanaro Mart in a myeon area and some consumer co-ops |
| Meaning of this decision | Keep the principle | Add a special exception that fits the policy goal |
| What this suggests for the future | Other industries are not automatically allowed either | A similar exception is possible only when the policy goal and the need for an exception are clear |
This is how complaints from the field turn into policy change
Policies do not usually 'change suddenly because there are many complaints.' Instead, they are adjusted when the issue enters the administrative process.
Step 1: Inconvenience keeps happening in real life
Consumers ask, 'Why can we not use the support money for gas?' and the gas station industry says the usable rate is too low. At this stage, the complaints may still stay at the level of public opinion.
Step 2: Associations and local governments turn the issue into documents
The Petroleum Distribution Association collects industry data and makes a proposal, and local governments send complaints and enforcement problems to central ministries. Administration moves more easily when there are numbers and cases rather than just words.
Step 3: The ministry reviews whether it conflicts with the policy goal
What they look at here is not only 'Is it inconvenient?' They also examine whether there is a way to better support the separate goal of easing the burden of high oil prices, without hurting the original purpose of supporting small business owners.
Step 4: They decide what to change and at what level to change it
If the law must be revised, it takes a long time. But if it is only about adjusting enforcement standards or a public notice, it is faster. Like this case, changing the standards for where it can be used is relatively close to an area that can be reflected quickly.
Step 5: Even after the announcement, the system, merchant signup, and field guidance must match
The policy announcement is not the end. The card payment network, merchant registration, app guidance, field stickers, and staff guidance all need to follow so people can really feel the change. So there is always a small time gap between the announcement and what people feel in real life.
The share of private car fuel costs in household spending is about this much
If you multiply the 14.4% transportation cost in Statistics Korea data by the 28.0% fuel cost for transport equipment inside it, private car fuel costs are estimated to be about 4% of total consumer spending.
If we look at who will feel it more, the key is 'how much you need to use a car'
The government's phrase 'practical burden relief' is not completely wrong. People who use cars often, long-distance commuters, and residents in areas where public transportation is hard to replace can feel it right away every time they buy gas. Especially outside the capital area, more than the region name itself, the dependence on cars is high, so even the same support may feel more sensitive.
Still, when looking at the whole household, the share of private car fuel costs is estimated to be about 4% of consumer spending based on Statistics Korea data. This value was calculated from data showing transportation costs at 14.4% and fuel costs for transport equipment inside that at 28.0%. So lower gas price pressure clearly helps, but if bigger fixed expenses like food costs, electricity bills, and insurance premiums rise together, it may not lead to the feeling that 'life got a lot easier.'
Self-employed people should not be seen as one single group either. Industries like delivery, transport, and freight, where vehicle operation is at the center of the cost structure, will feel it strongly, but for other industries, electricity bills, rent, and financing costs may matter more. So it is more accurate to read this policy not as a solution to all living cost problems, but as a supporting measure that reaches groups with a heavy gas cost burden more directly.
So where should you actually check, and how should you use it?
I said 'most,' not 'all,' right? In the real use stage, it is safest to check in the order below.
So this news should be read as 'it was adjusted again to fit the policy purpose' rather than 'the support fund increased.'
The real point of this news is not that the benefit suddenly became bigger. The government adjusted the meeting point again because the old rule of limits on places of use centered on small business owners and the current goal of reducing the burden of high oil prices came into conflict. If you understand this, you can also see why the gas station exception appeared, and why not every industry automatically follows it.
When you read similar news later, you only need to check three things. First, what burden the policy is really trying to solve. Second, whether the current standards for places of use match that purpose. Third, if an exception appeared, whether it means the rule is breaking down, or a careful fix made to fit the purpose. If you read this far, you can tell the difference between simple 'benefit expansion' and a design revision in support fund articles.
This change is an adjustment to reduce the mismatch between the policy name and the actual places where it can be used.
From now on, do not look only at 'how much do they give.' You also need to look at where and why it can be used to understand the system properly.
We will show you how to live in Korea
Please give lots of love to gltr life