현행 헌법상 농지 규정과 그에 대한 헌법개정 필요성

This study systematically analyzes the content and legislative intent of Article 121 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea regarding farmland, and examines the limitations of the current provisions and the necessity for constitutional amendment in the context of socio-economic changes and comparative constitutional law. First, the study investigates the structure and framework of Article 121, focusing on the principle of Kyŏngja-yujeon (farming by the tiller), highlighting that farmland is not merely private property but a resource with strong social and public significance. The analysis explores how the alignment of farmland ownership and cultivation contributes to farmers’ economic security, agricultural productivity, and the establishment of democratic order in rural society. Next, the historical background of post-liberation land reform is examined to demonstrate that Article 121 functions as more than a policy tool; it is a constitutional mechanism aimed at democratizing land ownership, fostering economic independence among farmers, and maintaining social stability. The study also identifies limitations of the current constitutional provisions, such as their rigidity in the face of agricultural diversification, rural depopulation, and industrialization-driven changes in land use. Furthermore, a comparative constitutional analysis of Germany and Japan illustrates alternative approaches. Germany enshrines the social obligation of property and public welfare principles at the constitutional level, while leaving specific farmland policies to the legislature, ensuring institutional flexibility. Japan similarly regulates property rights in general terms in the constitution and implements farmland reform and related policies primarily through statutory law, enabling adaptive responses to socio-economic changes. These cases suggest that Korea’s approach, which constitutionally prescribes both ownership structures and policy principles, is historically justified but may produce rigidity and reduce adaptability in contemporary society. In conclusion, the study emphasizes the need for a constitutional amendment that maintains the public and social significance of farmland while adopting an abstract principle-based approach combined with legislative discretion. This approach provides empirical and comparative evidence for farmland-related constitutional reform and offers strategic guidance for designing a constitution capable of responding to dynamic social and economic conditions.