The government has offered to suspend farmland disposal requirements as a follow-up to its nationwide farmland survey, but the criteria for relieving owners who have already received disposal orders remain unclear. With nearly 50,000 disposal requirements imposed over the past five years, critics say applying eased penalty standards only to those covered by the latest survey will spark disputes over fairness with owners already subject to disposal.
According to data the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs submitted to Rep. Kim Yong-tae of the People Power Party on the 21st, a total of 49,608 disposal requirements were imposed between 2020 and 2024 following farmland use surveys. Of those, 38,185 cases, or 77%, stemmed from "unauthorized idling," in which owners left land uncultivated without justification. Another 7,879 cases, or 15.9%, involved illegal leasing, including loans for use. Together the two categories accounted for 92.9% of all cases.
Narrowing the scope to 2024 shows the same concentration. Of 7,276 disposal requirements imposed that year, 4,224 cases, or 58.1%, involved idling and 1,702 cases, or 23.4%, involved illegal leasing, bringing their combined share to 81.5%. By area, 443.5 hectares of idle land and 24.6 hectares of illegally leased farmland totaled nearly 468.1 hectares — roughly 1.6 times the size of Seoul's Yeouido district, which spans 290 hectares.
As anxiety spread across rural communities over the farmland survey, the government set a policy of minimizing disposal requirements. The agriculture ministry said it would not force disposal of farmland left idle because of inheritance or old age, or of farmland leased illegally under long-standing local practice. To that end, it plans to introduce a special measures bill this month and complete legislation by year-end.
The problem is that a fairness dispute appears unavoidable between owners already ordered to dispose of land under the current Farmland Act and those exempted under the special measures law. Whether the new rules will apply retroactively to farmland already subject to disposal requirements, and how far relief will extend, has not been decided. That means penalties could differ for identical violations depending on when they were detected. A disposal requirement does not end with an administrative notice: depending on whether it is carried out, authorities can issue a disposal order or impose enforcement fines, raising the prospect of infringement on property rights.
The government says the question of retroactive application to farmland already subject to disposal will be discussed during the parliamentary legislative process. In its response to Rep. Kim's office, the ministry said it plans "to dispose of farmland held clearly for speculation in accordance with law and principle, while not proceeding with disposal procedures under the current Farmland Act for customary violations in rural areas," adding that it "will consult with the National Assembly and gather views on the specific scope of application, including whether to apply the rules retroactively to farmland already subject to disposal requirements."
Opposition lawmakers argue that the government rushed the farmland survey, resorted to stopgap fixes and is now shifting the burden of cleaning up to the National Assembly. Because the survey carries significant consequences for rural communities and for owners' property rights, they say, it required thorough advance review and social consensus — yet the follow-up measures failed even to set out a principle for relieving those already subject to disposal.
"Having disposal outcomes differ depending on when illegal farmland use was detected will only deepen distrust of administrative authority," Kim said. "Rather than passing responsibility for relief and retroactive application to the legislative process, the government, which pushed this system through in the first place, should take responsibility and first present clear guidelines for those already subject to disposal."