Democratic Party Unveils Special Bill to Legalize Customary Farmland Leases

A path has opened for the legal legitimization of customary farmland leases and illegal farmland conversion.

The Democratic Party of Korea announced on the 30th that it will push forward legislation of a "Special Act on the Remediation of Designated Farmland," aimed at comprehensively resolving long-accumulated illegal practices in the agricultural sector. According to Yonhap News, the bill's core purpose is to bring farmland transactions and usage practices—long stuck in a gray area between law and reality—within the legal framework. The bill reflects continuous appeals from the agricultural community after the June 3 local elections and issues repeatedly raised during parliamentary audits being elevated to a legislative agenda.

Why It Has Become an Issue Now

Current farmland law strictly restricts farmland ownership and use to actual farmers. However, in the field, there are numerous cases of non-farmers effectively leasing and cultivating farmland, or secretly using it for other purposes such as parking lots or warehouses. Most of these practices have solidified into long-standing customs, yet have been left unaddressed in a state of legal violation.

The problem is that enforcement and punishment alone cannot resolve the issue. Leaving violations unaddressed increases uncertainty in the farmland transaction market, while a blanket crackdown would simultaneously impose legal disadvantages on countless farm households. Behind the legislative discussion lies a judgment to resolve this gap between reality and law in one stroke through a special act.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The inclusion of "special measures" in the bill's name is interpreted as reflecting a compliance structure that, for a designated period, allows past improper usage to be reported for legal recognition rather than punishment in principle. For customary farmland leases, the tenant's rights could be guaranteed, while illegally converted farmland may go through land-use change procedures with subsequent restoration obligations or fees attached.

The applicable targets fall broadly into two categories: non-farmers who lease and cultivate or own farmland, and users who have converted farmland for residential or commercial purposes. Once legitimized, these parties would escape their long-standing legal risks but would likely take on new obligations such as conservation burdens or taxes.

The Debate Over Pros and Cons

There is considerable anticipation for the legalization within the agricultural community and local governments. If farmland that has long been tied up in illegal status circulates normally in the market, farm households' finances would improve, and local governments could assess actual conditions and manage farmland systematically.

Opposition voices are also strong. Critics point out that the principle of farmland preservation could be undermined. If illegal acts can be later legalized, those who complied with regulations would face reverse discrimination, and there are concerns about side effects such as urban capital easily acquiring farmland. The People Power Party and farmland-related civic groups are expected to demand strict limits on the scope and criteria for legalization. As the bill takes the form of a special act, it could move quickly through the National Assembly, prompting calls that sufficient time must be secured for negotiating the points of contention.

Legislative Timeline and Outlook

The Democratic Party is expected to introduce the bill soon, aiming for passage within the regular parliamentary session. Since the ruling party is driving the introduction, the procedure itself—from review by the Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs, Oceans and Fisheries Committee to plenary session—could move quickly.

However, the real contention will emerge at the committee stage rather than the plenary. Key negotiation points are how far back the legalization period will apply retroactively, what burdens to attach to converted farmland, and how much to relax restrictions on ownership by non-farmers. As passage would be difficult without opposition consent, inter-party negotiations on implementation criteria are likely to continue. The final passage is expected to take shape no later than next year's regular session.