"The government is trying to take my land," and "I'm about to be kicked off the land I've farmed all my life." These are the anxieties and complaints erupting in rural areas in the second half of this year. Conflicts between the government and farmers have reached a peak following the government's first nationwide farmland inspection. We examine why such fear has taken root among farmers.
1. The "Fear" of Nationwide Farmland Inspection: Where Did It Begin?
Let's look at how the nationwide farmland inspection started. It originated from remarks made by President Lee Jae-myung during a Cabinet meeting in February of this year. He pointed out that even farmland had become a target of speculation, noting that it is difficult for people returning to farming or rural areas to settle down because rural land prices are too high, and called for a nationwide inspection if necessary. So, did farmers' complaints start then? No. The next day, the Korean Peasants League actively welcomed it, calling it a crucial starting point for normalizing the farmland system, and even urged the swift implementation of the inspection. Amid this atmosphere, the first-ever nationwide farmland inspection began in May, but in just over two months, it began to turn into an object of fear. On July 30, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs announced the results of the initial basic survey from the first nationwide farmland inspection. It revealed that out of 10 million land parcels surveyed, 27% were suspected of violating the Farmland Act. On top of this, the revised Farmland Act, which took effect on August 28, strengthened the obligation of local governments to execute disposition orders when grounds for such orders are confirmed.
2. Why Are So Many Farmland Parcels Suspected of Violating the Law?
Farmers have no choice but to be anxious. With notifications coming in that 27% are targets for in-depth investigation and local governments' execution becoming mandatory, concerns are inevitably rising that they could lose their land if violations are confirmed. As in-depth investigations began, actual damage to farmers also occurred. Cases emerged where landowners, fearing trouble, contacted tenants and kicked them out, saying they would farm the land themselves.
[Lee Kwan-ho / Farmer in Anseong, Gyeonggi Province: (The landowner) said they would come and farm it themselves, so I just gave up about 1,200 pyeong of it. I had no choice but to lose the farmland....]
[Lee Don-il / Farmer in Anseong, Gyeonggi Province: Even the land I am currently farming, they (the landowner) said they would farm it and plant trees in the field. Even if I want to farm, I can't.]
Then why are so many farmland parcels suspected of legal violations? It is precisely 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 farm can own farmland, as regulated by Article 121 of the Constitution. Lease arrangements in inevitable cases are prescribed separately by law, which is the Farmland Act. However, in rural areas, customary leases that exceed the scope permitted by the Farmland Act are rampant. Land entrusted to a neighbor because the owner is too old to farm anymore, land cultivated by a neighbor or relative because the owner is sick, 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-allowance requirements of the Farmland Act, but private direct leases between individuals that do not fall under the statutory lease reasons or should be leased 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, out of the roughly 8,000 pyeong I farm, I only have lease contracts written for 4,000 pyeong.]
Claims even erupted that farmland prices plummeted as buyers disappeared and farmland transactions came to a complete halt.
3. Government Scrambles to Calm the Situation
As farming sentiment boiled over, the government, the ruling party, and even the president stepped forward to calm the situation, stating that the goal was to weed out speculation and that customary leases were not subject to disposition. As a follow-up measure on September 21, the government announced that it would provide an opportunity to normalize customary leases and defer disposition if the land is entrusted to the Korea Rural Community Corporation. It also stated that it would create a special measure act to enable the deferral of disposition and establish a legal basis. However, this left lingering anxiety: the issue of entrusting land to the Korea Rural Community Corporation. While the Farmland Act allows farmland to be leased in cases of inherited land or when owners cannot 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, however, is that entrusting land to the corporation could mean the land might not return to the farmers currently cultivating it. Ultimately, criticism that tenant farmers are being kicked out could not be avoided. Anxiety also persisted that it was merely a deferral of disposition and would ultimately become subject to disposition in the end. Consequently, the government released further follow-up measures on the 8th of this month. It drew a firm line that, based on the results of the current comprehensive survey, disposition procedures would not be pursued for general and customary violations other than speculative purposes. Presenting three major types of speculation—such as acquiring farmland with false farming plans and leaving it unattended without authorization—the government backed down, stating it would not dispose of land for anything else. It also stated that entrusting farmland to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, which had been problematic, was not mandatory and unveiled measures to ensure that farmers currently cultivating the land would be given priority designation even if entrusted to the corporation.
4. Why Were Measures Not Prepared in Advance?
Why weren't such measures prepared in advance? The National Assembly Research Service had issued a report before the nationwide inspection began. It contained expert opinions that the purpose and scope of the nationwide farmland inspection should be clarified, and legal and institutional foundations such as special laws should be put in place before entering field investigations. It turns out that warnings had already been issued beforehand that a special law was needed to keep the government's promise of "no disposition," but the government ignored them. 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 issues such as customary leases that have surfaced to match reality. 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 farmland policies. However, failing to first bridge the gap between rural realities and the current Farmland Act, and instead making actual farmers fear that they might "lose 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 Su-min, Production by SBS Digital News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.