"Government Trying to Seize My Land": Why Are Farmers Terrified?

"The government is trying to take my land," and "I'm about to be kicked out of the land I've farmed all my life." These are the anxieties and grievances erupting from rural areas in the second half of this year. Sparked by the government's first comprehensive investigation into agricultural land, the conflict between authorities and farmers has reached a peak. We examine why such fear has taken root among farmers.

1. The "Fear" of the Agricultural Land Investigation: Where Did It Begin?

Let's look at how the comprehensive agricultural land investigation started. It originated from remarks made by President Lee Jae-myung during a Cabinet meeting in February this year. He pointed out that even agricultural land had become a target of speculation, noting that high rural land prices make it difficult for returning farmers and rural migrants to settle, and ordered a comprehensive investigation if necessary. So, did farmers' grievances start back then? No. The next day, the Korean Peasants League actively welcomed the move, calling it a crucial starting point for normalizing the agricultural land system, and urged swift execution of the survey. Against this backdrop, the country's first comprehensive agricultural land investigation began in May, but within just two months, it began to turn into an object of fear. On July 30, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs announced the preliminary results of the first comprehensive survey. It revealed that 27 percent of the 10 million parcels investigated were suspected of violating the Farmland Act. In addition, the revised Farmland Act, which took effect on August 28, strengthened obligations for local governments to enforce disposition orders when grounds for such orders are confirmed.

2. Why Are So Many Farmlands Suspected of Violating the Law?

Farmers are inevitably feeling anxious. With notifications rolling out that 27 percent are subject to in-depth investigation and local government enforcement becoming mandatory, concerns naturally arose that they could lose their land if violations are confirmed. As in-depth investigations began, actual damage to farmers occurred. Fearing trouble, landowners began contacting tenant farmers and driving them out so they could farm the land themselves.

[Lee Gwan-ho / Farmer in Anseong, Gyeonggi Province: (The landowner) said they would come and farm it themselves, so I just handed over about 1,200 pyeong. I had no choice because I would lose the farmland....]

[Lee Don-il / Farmer in Anseong, Gyeonggi Province: Even for the land I am currently farming, (the landowner) says they will farm it and plant trees in the field. Even if I want to farm, I can't.]

Then why are so many farmlands suspected of legal violations? It is due to the gap between long-standing rural practices and the current Farmland Act. You may have heard of the principle that farmland belongs to those who farm it. It stipulates that only those who actually farm can own agricultural land, as prescribed by Article 121 of the Constitution. Lease agreements in unavoidable cases are stipulated separately by law, which is the Farmland Act. However, in rural areas, conventional lease agreements that exceed the scope permitted by the Farmland Act are rampant. Land entrusted to a neighbor because the owner is too old to farm directly, land cultivated by a neighbor or relative due to illness, or land owned by a clan or with complex ownership relations that a relative has farmed for a long time—some of these are permissible under the lease exceptions of the Farmland Act, but direct private leases that fall outside the legal lease grounds or should be rented through the Korea Rural Community Corporation can constitute legal violations.

[Lee Ho-keun / Farmer in Anseong, Gyeonggi Province: Because of (the landowner's) capital gains tax, I farm about 8,000 pyeong, but I only have lease contracts written for 4,000 pyeong.]

Complaints even erupted that farmland prices plummeted as buyers disappeared and farmland transactions ground to a halt.

3. Government Scrambles to Calm the Situation

As public sentiment in rural areas boiled over, the government, the ruling party, and even the President stepped in to quell the fears, stating that while the goal is to weed out speculation, conventional leases are not targets for disposition. As follow-up measures on September 21, the government announced that it would provide an opportunity to normalize conventional leases and defer disposition if the land is entrusted to the Korea Rural Community Corporation. It also stated that it would establish a special measure act to create legal grounds for deferring disposition. However, this left lingering anxiety—namely, the issue of entrusting land to the Korea Rural Community Corporation. While the Farmland Act allows farmland leasing in cases of inherited land or inability to farm due to old age, it mandates that farmland exceeding 1 hectare must be entrusted to the Korea Rural Community Corporation for legal leasing. The problem is that entrusting land to the corporation could mean the land might not return to the farmer currently cultivating it. Ultimately, criticism that this evades kicking out tenant farmers could not be avoided. Anxiety also persisted that disposition deferral would ultimately lead to disposition in the end. Consequently, the government released another set of follow-up measures on the 8th of this month. It drew a firm line that general and conventional violations other than speculative purposes will not be subject to disposition procedures based on the results of this comprehensive survey. Presenting three major types of speculation—such as acquiring farmland with fake farming plans and leaving it abandoned without permission—the government stepped back, stating that no other land will be disposed of. Addressing the controversial issue of Korea Rural Community Corporation consignment, it stated that consignment is not mandatory and introduced measures to ensure that farmers currently cultivating the land are given priority designation even if entrusted to the corporation.

4. Why Were Countermeasures Not Prepared in Advance?

Although the government belatedly stepped in to manage the situation, questions remain: Why weren't these measures prepared in advance? The National Assembly Research Service had released a report before the comprehensive survey began. It contained expert opinions advising that the purpose and scope of the agricultural land survey should be clearly defined, and legal and institutional foundations such as special laws should be established before launching field investigations. It turns out the government ignored prior warnings that a special law was necessary to honor the government's promise of "no disposition." The government plans to enact a special measure act within this year and revise the existing Farmland Act by the first half of next year to reflect realities such as conventional leases that have surfaced. Filtering out people who acquired farmland for speculative purposes and creating accurate data on who owns the land and who actually farms it are necessary tasks for future agricultural land policy. However, investigating over 10 million parcels of land without first resolving the gap between rural realities and the current Farmland Act, causing actual farmers to fear losing their land, makes it difficult to avoid criticism that the government failed to fully realize the true meaning of a proper comprehensive survey.

(Reported by Jeong Seong-jin, Produced by Shin Hee-suk, Video Reporting by Lee Byung-joo, Video Editing by Ryu Ji-su, Design by Lee Soo-min, Production: SBS Digital News)

※