"The state is trying to take away my land," "I'm about to be kicked off the land I've farmed my whole life." These are the anxieties and complaints pouring out of rural communities in the second half of this year. Sparked by the government's first-ever full-scale survey of farmland, conflict between the government and farmers has reached a peak. Let us examine why such fear has taken hold among farmers. Let's first trace how the complete farmland survey began. The starting point was remarks made by President Lee Jae-myung at a Cabinet meeting in February this year. Pointing out that even farmland has become a target of speculation, and that high land prices in rural areas make it difficult for people seeking to return to farming or rural life to settle down, he called for a comprehensive survey if necessary. So, did farmers' discontent start then? No. The following day, the Korean Peasants League warmly welcomed the initiative, calling it a significant starting point for normalizing the farmland system. They even urged the swift implementation of the complete survey.

In this atmosphere, the unprecedented full-scale farmland survey got underway in May, but in just about two months, it began turning into a source of dread. On July 30, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs announced the preliminary findings of its first comprehensive farmland survey. It revealed that 27% of the 10 million parcels surveyed were suspected of violating the Farmland Act. To make matters worse, the revised Farmland Act, which took effect on August 28, reinforced local governments' legal obligation to enforce disposal orders whenever grounds for such orders are confirmed. Farmers could not help but feel anxious. When notifications arrived stating that 27% were subject to in-depth inspections, and local governments were now obligated to enforce penalties, fears naturally arose that people could lose their land if violations were verified. As in-depth inspections commenced, actual harm to farmers also began occurring. Sensing trouble, some landowners contacted tenant farmers and told them they would farm the land themselves, driving tenant farmers away.

[Lee Gwan-ho / Farmer in Anseong, Gyeonggi Province: "(The landowner) said he would come and do it himself, so I just handed over about 1,200 pyeong (approx. 3,960 square meters). I had no choice but to give up the farmland...."]

[Lee Don-il / Farmer in Anseong, Gyeonggi Province: "The owner says he wants to farm what's currently being cultivated, planting trees in the field. Even if I want to farm it, I can't."]

Why, then, are so many agricultural lands suspected of violating the law? It stems from the gap between long-standing rural customs and the current Farmland Act. Many are familiar with the principle of "land to the tiller." Article 121 of the Constitution stipulates that farmland may only be owned by those who actively cultivate it. Inevitable exceptions, such as leasing, are governed separately by statute, namely the Farmland Act. In rural areas, however, customary leasing beyond the scope permitted by the Farmland Act is rampant. Land entrusted to neighbors because elderly owners can no longer farm themselves, land cultivated by neighbors or relatives on behalf of an ailing owner, or clan-owned land with complex ownership structures cultivated by a single relative for decades—some of these may qualify under legal leasing criteria, but farmland directly leased between individuals without meeting statutory grounds or bypassing mandatory channels like the Farmland Bank can constitute legal violations.

[Lee Ho-geun / Farmer in Anseong, Gyeonggi Province: "Because of the landowner's capital gains tax issues, I cultivate about 8,000 pyeong, but the signed lease contract covers only 4,000 pyeong."]

Complaints have even surfaced that farmland prices have tumbled as prospective buyers disappeared and transactions ground to a halt. As agrarian sentiment boiled over, the government, the ruling party, and even the president stepped in to defuse tensions, asserting that the investigation was meant to root out speculation and that customary leasing would not be subject to forced disposal. In follow-up measures announced on September 21, the government stated it would grant opportunities to regularize customary leases and defer disposal orders if the land is entrusted to the Farmland Bank. It also pledged to establish a legal foundation by enacting a special measures act to allow for such deferrals.

Yet anxieties lingered, particularly over entrustment to the Farmland Bank. Under the Farmland Act, leasing is permitted for inherited farmland or when owners can no longer farm due to advanced age, but legal leasing of farmland exceeding 1 hectare is permitted only through entrustment to the Farmland Bank. The problem is that when land is entrusted to the Farmland Bank, it may not be allocated back to the farmer currently cultivating it. This inevitably drew criticism that tenant farmers were being evicted after all. Doubts also persisted that a deferral of disposal might ultimately mean the land would still be slated for disposal in the end.

Ultimately, on October 8, the government unveiled yet another set of follow-up measures. It made clear that general, customary violations not driven by speculative intent would not face disposal proceedings based on this survey's results. Identifying three major speculative types—such as acquiring farmland through fraudulent farming plans and leaving it neglected without authorization—the government backed down, stating that lands outside these categories would not be subject to disposal orders. It also clarified that entrustment to the Farmland Bank is not mandatory and introduced measures to ensure that, even if land is entrusted to the bank, current cultivators will be given priority designation. Although the government has belatedly moved to resolve the situation, questions remain: Why were these measures not prepared in advance? Prior to the launch of the nationwide survey, the National Assembly Research Service published a report containing expert opinions that the government must clearly define the purpose and scope of the farmland survey and establish legal and institutional frameworks, such as a special act, before launching on-site investigations. Despite prior warnings that a special law would be required to honor the government's promise of "no disposal," the administration appears to have brushed them aside. The government now plans to draft a special measures act within this year and revise the existing Farmland Act by the first half of next year to bring issues such as customary leasing, now brought to light, in line with reality.

Filtering out those who purchased agricultural land for speculation and compiling accurate data on who owns the land and who actively cultivates it are necessary steps for future agricultural policy. However, by inspecting over 10 million parcels of land without first bridging the gap between rural realities and existing farmland laws, leading actual farmers to fear that their land might be taken away, the government will find it difficult to avoid criticism that it bungled the rollout and undermined the true purpose of a nationwide survey.