A group of 14 business owners in Daejeon, South Korea, who operated establishments serving dog meat, have filed administrative lawsuits against local government bodies. The legal action stems from their dissatisfaction with the compensation offered for business closures mandated by the upcoming ban on the dog meat trade, set to take effect in February 2027.
Legal Challenge Against Business Closure Compensation
The lawsuits, filed in late November, target the Daejeon Metropolitan City and its district offices. Specifically, six businesses in the Daedeok-gu district are seeking the cancellation of decisions that denied them compensation for business losses. These owners argue that the financial support provided by the government for ceasing operations is insufficient, given the decades-long history of their businesses and the significant impact of the new law.
The owners contend that the government’s proposed compensation, intended to facilitate business closure or transition, does not adequately cover their actual losses. They are demanding a more substantial and fair compensation package that reflects the true economic damage incurred by the forced closure of their long-standing enterprises.
This legal challenge is not isolated to Daedeok-gu. Similar actions have been initiated in four other districts within Daejeon: Yuseong-gu (four owners), Dong-gu (three owners), and Jung-gu (one owner). Court records indicate at least 14 individuals are involved in these administrative lawsuits.
Understanding the Dog Meat Trade Prohibition Act
The ‘Act on the Prohibition of Dogs for Food Consumption, etc.’ (commonly referred to as the Dog Meat Trade Prohibition Act) officially criminalizes the farming, slaughtering, and distribution of dogs for meat consumption. It also prohibits the processing and sale of food products derived from dogs or using them as ingredients.
Penalties under the act are severe. Violators face up to three years in prison or a fine of up to 30 million won for slaughtering dogs for consumption. Those involved in farming, breeding, or distributing dogs for meat face up to two years in prison or a fine of up to 20 million won.
The legislation also mandates that businesses involved in the dog meat trade, including dog farms, slaughterhouses, distribution centers, and restaurants, must report their facilities and operations to local government authorities. In turn, national and local governments are tasked with supporting the closure or transition of these businesses.
The law, passed by the National Assembly in 2024, includes a three-year grace period, extending until February 2027. This period is intended to give business owners and the industry adequate time to prepare for closure or to pivot to different business models.
Government Support and Industry Concerns
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, in its ‘Basic Plan for the Prohibition of Dogs for Food Consumption’ released in October 2024, outlined the implications of the ban. Starting February 2027, all operations related to the farming, slaughtering, distribution, and sale of dogs for meat will be prohibited, necessitating either closure or business transformation for existing establishments.
According to the plan, businesses choosing to close down are eligible for up to 4 million won to cover costs such as dismantling facilities and restoring the original site. Those that opt to change their menu or the type of meat they serve can receive up to 2.5 million won in support.
However, some restaurant owners argue that these amounts are insufficient to compensate for their business losses. They are seeking separate compensation beyond the government’s current support schemes, according to Daejeon city officials.
Local Government’s Stance
Local government officials have stated that they denied the additional compensation claims because the Dog Meat Trade Prohibition Act does not contain any specific provisions for separate compensation for business losses. They maintain that the existing support measures are the maximum extent of administrative assistance possible within the legal framework.
A representative from one of the affected local government bodies in Daejeon explained, “We have provided the maximum administrative support possible within the existing criteria.” The official added, “Requests that go beyond the regulations, which are established for the public interest and social consensus, and require the allocation of taxpayer money, are difficult to accommodate.”
Each district office in Daejeon has appointed legal counsel and is prepared to actively defend its position in the ongoing lawsuits. They emphasize that their actions are in line with the legislative intent of the new law, which aims to transition away from the dog meat trade while providing a structured, albeit limited, support system for affected businesses.
Conclusion
The administrative lawsuits filed by dog meat business owners in Daejeon highlight a significant point of contention regarding the financial support provided during the transition away from the dog meat trade. While the government offers compensation for closure and business conversion, owners are seeking more substantial restitution for their perceived losses. Local authorities maintain they are operating within the bounds of the law and the allocated budget, setting the stage for a legal battle that could shape the implementation of the new prohibition act.
