농지보전부담금 부과기준 개선 연구

Abstract

농지보전부담금은 농지를 전용함으로써 농지 면적을 감소시키는 원인을 제공한 자에게 부과하는 원인자부담금으로서 부과기준은 해당농지의 개별공시지가의 30%이다. 농지보전부담금은 우량농지 확보와 식량자급 기반 마련 목적을 가지고 있지만, 현실적으로 제도를 운용하는 과정에서 문제점도 몇 가지 노출하고 있다. 제도 도입 초기에 비해 수납액이 급격히 증가하여 이에 대한 저항감도 같이 증가하고 있다는 것과 공시지가 기준 부담금 부과라는 재원확보 효율성에 치우쳐 상대적으로 농업진흥지역 밖 농지보다 값싼 농업진흥지역의 농지전용을 더 원하도록 하는 부작용 문제가 제기되고 있다. 따라서 농지보전부담금의 부과기준, 사용용도, 감면비율 등을 재검토를 통하여 당초 이 제도가 의도하였던 목적을 달성하고 있는지에 대한 검토 필요성이 대두되고 있다. 이 연구는 농지보전부담금제도의 중요한 목적이라 할 수 있는 우량농지 보호를 위해 외부여건 변화에 부응하고, 장기적으로 제도가 지속할 수 있도록 개선방안을 제시하는데 있다.

The farmland preservation charge has the purpose of securing fertile farmland and laying down a foundation for providing food self-sufficiency, but some problems exist in the institutional system on which the charge is based. One adverse effect is that since the farmland preservation system is focused on the efficiency of collecting the charge based on official land price, it induces farmland diversion in agriculture-promoted areas where land price is cheaper than in other areas. Moreover, the charge payers' dissatisfaction over the sharp increase in the charge compared to earlier days has been growing too. For this reason, this study examines the levy standards, the charge reduction rate, and the use of the charge to find out whether the charge serves its original purpose and to propose appropriate measures to improve the system. This study examined the background, concept, and characteristics of the farmland preservation system in a preliminary research on the overview and history of the system. For estimation of the demand for farmland diversion, a quantitative analysis was conducted using the ARIMA and VAR models, and the levy records of recent five years(2008-2012) were used to make projections of the farmland preservation charge. Also, expert opinions were collected and officials at the agriculture ministry and Korea Rural Community Corporation were consulted to examine the pending issues of the farmland preservation system. Suggestions were made on ways to improve the levy standards concerning the charge rate and the charge's ceiling, as well as reduction and exemption of the charge, under the basic principle of restraining the land diversion and securing high-quality farmland. First of all, it is suggested that in order to meet the original purpose of restraining the diversion of high-quality farmland as much as possible and maintain the system's stability continuously, it is necessary to raise the levy rate in agriculture-promoted areas, while maintaining the rate at 30% in areas outside agriculture-promoted areas, rather than lowering it. If the farmland preservation charge levied in an agriculture-promoted area is to be higher than the one levied in a non-agriculture-promoted area, then the levy rate should be increased by more than 20% on average (assuming that the levy rate in non-agriculture-promoted areas is 30%). In this sense, there is a need to raise the levy rate in agriculture-promoted areas from the current 30% to 50%. If the government raises the upper limit of the official land price, then it may have the effect of stimulating farmland diversion in agriculture-promoted areas where the farmland preservation charge is low in terms of development cost. Thus, it is desirable to maintain the upper limit at the current level so that farmland in suburban areas where there is the possibility of development can be developed first. As for measures to improve the regulations related to the reduction and exemption of the farmland preservation charge, it is necessary to first specify the conditions that warrant the benefits. Also, it is necessary to firmly lay down a principle that would not allow 100% reduction of the farmland preservation charge in agriculture-promoted areas. Moreover, the farmland preservation charge should be exempted only when farmland diversion is sought by the central or local government for pubic benefit or when it is sought by farmers themselves. In other cases, the maximum reduction rate of 50% should apply. As for charges in arrears, it is desirable to expand installment payment to all payers rather than introducing additional charges or allowing credit card payment. Although one may be concerned that farmland diversion could rise if installment payment increases, it won't be a big problem if it is operated alongside the prepayment system. Researchers: Gwangseok Chae, Hongsang Kim, Jeongseung KimResearch period: 2013.2. ~ 2013. 6.E-mail address: gschae@krei.re.kr