비농업인의 농지소유에 관한 비판적 고찰 = A Critical Study on the Ownership of Agricultural Land by a non-farming person

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Food security is one of the country's important policies and cannot be abandoned at any cost. Farmland is a means of producing agricultural products that are essential to achieving food security. Conservation of farmland should not be limited to securing a certain scale of farmland, but it should be able to function as an agricultural production element. Farmland should not only be suitable for the ecological aspect of production of agricultural products but also be able to generate profits by being put into agricultural production by maintaining low prices like French farmland. In this respect, Article 3 of the Agricultural Land Act declares that farmland should be owned and used in the direction of enhancing agricultural productivity and not subject to speculation. Nevertheless, Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Farmland Act, violates Article 121 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Article 11 (1) of the Farmland Act by broadly acknowledging the exceptions for the farmers’ possessions of the farmland. Many of the constitutional documents ignore the phenomenon of destroying the Constitution by law and argued that the principle of land to the tiller should be dismissed based on the fact that the principle of land to the filler is virtually abolished only by the result. These claims are not convincing if we look at the case of Taiwan, the world's first to discard the principle of land to the tiller.
Some particular cases of harming the principle of livelihoods are the case of the possession of agricultural land by heirs who are non-farmers, immigrant workers, agricultural corporations, and excessively acknowledging the possession for the purpose of weekend farm.
Especially in recent years, farmland is being widely used by agricultural corporations by easing the requirements of agricultural corporations so that non - farmers can actually own farmland. The Constitution, in conjunction with the public domain of land, should be able to practice dispose of farmland owned by non-farmers so that the principle of land to the tiller can ultimately be achieved, but in order to prevent the confusion caused by rapid policy change, we expect to be able to accomplish the desired purpose indirectly through the expansion of taxes, maximum limitation of the rent, and subsidy.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 정종섭, "헌법학원론" 박영사 2008

2 "헌법재판소 2003.11.27. 2003헌바2결정"

3 김성수, "헌법상 경제조항에 대한 개정론" 한국공법학회 34 (34): 183-208, 2006

4 김욱, "헌법상 ‘경자유전’의 과도기적 소유원칙, 그 발전적 이행을 위하여" 28 (28): 2000

5 이종수, "한국헌법상 '경자유전(耕者有田)의 원칙'과 한계" 한국토지법학회 24 (24): 1-22, 2008

6 허영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 2008

7 박준기, "직접지불제 효과분석과 개선방안연구(1/2년차)" 한국농촌경제연구원 2016

8 사동천, "쌀 소득 직접지불제와 관련 농지법의 문제점" 법학연구소 10 (10): 315-347, 2009

9 사동천, "소작제 금지의 원칙" 법학연구원 24 (24): 165-195, 2017

10 "대법원 2007.5.31. 선고 2006두8235판결"

11 "대법원 1999.4.23, 선고 99도678판결"

12 "대법원 1999.2.23. 자 98마2604결정"

13 사동천, "농지임대차의 문제점" 법학연구소 11 (11): 131-167, 2010

14 사동천, "농지소유제도에 관한 비판적 고찰" 법조협회 57 (57): 199-240, 2008

15 한국농촌경제연구원, "농지법제정백서" 1995

16 김태훈, "농업직불제의 개편과 과제, 문재인 대통령 농정공약 실천전략" 농정연구센터 62 (62): 2017

17 김진곤, "경자유전의 원칙과 소작제도금지의 헌법적 함의" 한국토지공법학회 38 : 103-121, 2007

18 고창현, "경자유전의 원칙과 비농민의 농지소유" (8) : 1990

19 사동천, "경자유전의 원칙" 법학연구소 18 (18): 239-259, 2017

20 土屋生, "農業法學(1)" 日本中央大學出版部 1985

21 "中國時報, 2015年05月15日기사"

22 안종운, "96농지제도 이렇게 달라진다" 1995