More than 1,000 farmland owners are ordered each year to sell or otherwise dispose of their land, yet the government has not tracked the specific grounds for those orders. Critics say the government and the ruling party made such orders mandatory for local governments in the name of curbing farmland speculation, without building even a basic record-keeping system to check whether the sanctions are warranted or whether innocent owners have been caught up in them.
According to data the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs submitted to Rep. Kim Yong-tae of the People Power Party on the 15th, the number of people subject to disposal orders following local governments' farmland use surveys came to 1,392 in 2021, 1,901 in 2022, 1,416 in 2023 and 1,700 in 2024 — a total of 6,409 over the four years. The farmland covered by those orders measured 201 hectares, 198 hectares, 151 hectares and 176 hectares respectively, for a combined 726 hectares, or nearly 2.5 times the 290 hectares of Seoul's Yeouido district. Figures for 2025 have not yet been compiled.
The problem is that while the ministry tallies the number of people and the acreage involved, it keeps no separate records on why the orders were issued. Although thousands of farmland owners have been hit with disposal orders over the past four years, the government has no grasp of how sanctions break down by type of violation under the Farmland Act, such as illegal leasing, leaving land fallow or unauthorized conversion to other uses. Over the same period, fines imposed for failing to comply with disposal orders rose 41.4%, from 7.708 billion won in 2021 to 10.896 billion won in 2024.
A farmland disposal order compels the owner to sell the land, making it one of the strongest sanctions available because it restricts property rights. Checking whether the system works as intended and sifting out those wrongly penalized requires basic data, including the grounds for each order. With the government failing to manage even the relevant statistics in any systematic way, critics say there is little institutional basis to verify that sanctions are appropriate or to shore up confidence in the policy.
Oversight after the orders are issued also appears lax. Asked how many appeals had been filed against disposal orders and compliance fines, and how much in fines remained unpaid, the ministry replied that it had "no such data." The current Farmland Act allows anyone contesting a compliance fine to file an objection within 30 days of being notified. A procedure exists for challenging sanctions that restrict property rights, but the government is effectively leaving disputes that arise after the orders unattended.
Anxiety in farming communities is growing as the government launches its first-ever comprehensive survey of all farmland. The revised Farmland Act, which took effect at the end of August, made disposal orders mandatory where they had previously been left to local governments' discretion. If the survey turns up additional violations, the number of owners facing orders could rise. The ministry has said it will minimize harm to farmers by exempting from disposal farmland found to be under long-standing customary leases, which is why there are calls for urgently setting up a management system that breaks down the orders in detail and allows the appropriateness of sanctions to be verified.
"The ministry boasted it would root out farmland speculation without creating innocent victims, but the absurd reality is that it does not even know the grounds for disposal orders that restrict property rights," Kim said. "It is frustrating. How do they intend to identify farmers who have been wronged when they do not even know whom they punished or why?"
"They should stop this desk-bound administration that swings the sword first with a slapdash system, and start by setting up a proper basic management framework," Kim added.
A ministry official said local governments do submit the grounds for mandatory disposal obligations by category following farmland use surveys, "but for disposal orders we compiled only the number of cases and the acreage, and did not separately gather the reasons for imposing them." The official added, "We will make improvements so that the grounds for disposal orders can also be managed by category going forward."