농지법 ‘경자유전’ 원칙, 주택에도 적용하자 [왜냐면]

The Land Act governs ownership of land primarily for agricultural purposes, a principle enshrined in Article 121 of the Constitution, known as "Kongje Yujeon" (耕者有田). If land is not used for agricultural purposes, the owner must relinquish it within a year, facing a penalty of 25% to 50% of the property's value annually. The penalty can accumulate and surpass the land's worth.

In 2010, the Constitutional Court ruled against a provision that fined landowners 20% of their land's value each year. While exceptions exist for legitimate reasons such as illness or military service, the rule remains clear: land must be used for agriculture.

Now, let's shift our focus to housing. Empty, uninhabited properties, or those acquired solely for speculative purposes, do not face the same penalties as land. This apparent discrepancy raises the question: why do landowners bear the burden of use, but homeowners do not? In 2020, Democratic Party Representative Seongjun Kim proposed a basic housing policy that would mandate ownership of a home for each household.

Despite controversy over constitutionality, the bill was ultimately abandoned in 2024. Even opposition politicians like Hong Jun-pyo, former mayor of Gwangju, and current lawmakers like Park Hong-gyun and Woo Won-seok have called for a shift in mindset towards housing as a basic right, rather than an investment or speculative asset.

The key is to ensure that every home serves a practical purpose of living, not merely accumulating value. This principle, known as "Geurae Yuju" (居者有住), would prevent vacant properties from being treated as mere assets. Just as landowners face penalties for neglect, homeowners should be held accountable for maintaining their properties as lived-in spaces.

This approach could help address the current imbalance and prevent what many consider to be an unfair form of discrimination against homeowners.