Apply the Farmland Act's 'farmer's ownership of land' principle to housing

South Korea's Farmland Act embodies the constitutional principle of 'Geongjayujeon' (耕者有田), meaning 'farmer's ownership of land.' This law stipulates that farmland should primarily be owned by those who actively engage in its agricultural management. If land is not used for farming without a justifiable reason, owners face an obligation to sell it within a year. Failure to comply can lead to an annual penalty of 25% of the land's appraised value, a measure consistently upheld by the Constitutional Court.

The author draws a stark contrast between the strict regulations governing farmland and the treatment of urban housing. While vacant homes held for speculative purposes, awaiting value appreciation, are common, they do not trigger the same mandatory disposal obligations as farmland. This disparity raises a critical question: why is the principle of active use enforced for agricultural land but not for residential properties?

While acknowledging differences between farmland and housing, the author points to past legislative efforts and public discourse that suggest a shared concern. A proposed amendment to the Residential Basic Act in 2020 aimed to establish 'one household, one housing unit' as a basic principle, though it ultimately failed due to constitutional debates. Even conservative politicians have voiced similar sentiments, advocating for housing to be viewed as a place of residence rather than solely an investment vehicle.

“

Why is it permissible for farmland, but not for houses?

The core argument is for the application of a 'Geojayuju' (居者有住) principle – 'resident's right to housing' – to urban properties. This principle would ensure that houses are utilized for actual residence rather than being left vacant or used purely for asset accumulation. The author argues that the current asymmetry, where farmland owners face significant penalties for non-use while owners of vacant investment properties do not, constitutes a form of reverse discrimination.

Ultimately, the piece calls for a re-evaluation of housing policy, suggesting that the government and National Assembly should draw inspiration from the farmland law's mechanisms for encouraging use and imposing phased burdens. While acknowledging the need for exceptions for situations like inheritance, temporary second homes, or vacant rural properties, the author insists that the principle of responsibility for use must be applied to housing, just as it has long been for farmland.

“

The principle of 'farmer's ownership of land' has long been accompanied by the responsibility of use. Now is the time for the nation to answer what responsibilities will be imposed on housing.