“It’s absurd. This is KEPCO’s unilateral standard, isn’t it?”
“This conflict is not for a pure purpose, but for the purpose of compensating for the lack or temporarily building performance…”
Related Report: https://imnews.imbc.com/replay/2023/nwdesk/article/6446924_36199.html
Lee Deok-jae, who has been farming Cornus officinalis for over 30 years in a village,
I got a call from KEPCO, saying that I have to pay a penalty of 20 million won.
It was literally a ‘penalty bomb’, it was a lightning bolt for Mr.
What happened?
Two months ago, a KEPCO employee who was in the process of addressing the use of agricultural electricity visited Mr. Lee.
I opened a warehouse where agricultural products and ingredients were stored, and I began to disagree with the kimchi container placed on one side.
It is noted that kimchi is a processed product, not an agricultural product, so it should not be stored in a low temperature warehouse.
[이덕재 / 구례 농민]
“I don’t understand it from our farmer’s point of view, but KEPCO laws are like this…
Farmers without power cannot afford to consider such a situation.”
I have heard the saying ‘Agricultural electricity should be used for its intended purpose’, but
There were no guidelines or guidelines saying that kimchi should not be stored in warehouses during the three years of agricultural electricity use.
Criteria for enforcement of entertainment
The reason for paying Lee 20 million won in penalty was also absurd.
Only 3 years have passed since Mr. Lee used the low temperature warehouse, but he also imposed penalties on those who used the warehouse before.
When Mr Lee protested, the penalty was reduced to 600,000 won. Of course, there was no reason or standard for a reduction of more than 90%.
Other farms in the vicinity were in a similar situation.
Ko Heung-seok, who runs a blueberry farm, was raided by KEPCO’s low-temperature warehouse while he was away.
The problem was the kimchi and pickles placed next to the harvested produce.
In the end, Goh was fined 6 million won for breach of contract.
He said there must have been a problem during the five years of using the low temperature warehouse, and it was retroactive to five years at a time.
Mr Ko, who later found out about the raid, said: “I didn’t put in processed goods for five years,
I don’t understand what criteria they set all at once,’ he protested.
The amount then went down to 2.6 million won. It is a standard that comes and goes.
The reporters traveled around the village for about an hour to find out if any farmhouses were charged with a penalty for the same reason.
We were able to find farmhouses with similar damage, one house across the street.
All of the farmers complained about injustice, saying that this conflict was sudden and they don’t even know what the product was processed and that they have to pay a penalty.
The criteria for placement are vague. Nevertheless, KEPCO forced the conflict.
After all, because of the lack of KEPCO?
The reporters asked KEPCO for statistics on the crackdown on the illegal use of agricultural electricity by city and county in South Jeolla Province between 2017 and 2022.
The difficult material was full of questions.
Penalties, which were 1-2 cases per year, increased to 63 cases last year (41 cases for cold storage conflicts).
The amount also increased from several million won to about 55 million won (29 million won for cold storage conflicts).
Why did the number of conflicts soar in the last year alone?
If there was a large scale conflict, I wonder if it was a decision based on head office guidelines.
When asked what was the reason for the rapid increase in the number of conflicts, the Gurye branch of KEPCO replied, “It was because of KEPCO’s fault.”
In addition, “As management pressure came in, we started cracking to make up for the shortfall,
“I was worried that farmers would not use cheap agricultural electricity recklessly in a situation where electricity rates were expected to rise,” he explained.
[기자]
“By the way, was there a reason you specifically broke it last year?”
[한국전력 관계자]
“It is also a situation where the cumulative deficit of about 30 trillion won,
As we are under various control pressures… I thought there might be a leak in the electricity bill.
Electricity bills will rise. in the presence of such matter. Isn’t farming rather cheap?
So maybe (farmers) are tempted to use it (agricultural electricity)…”
Only powerless peasants…?
In fact, this is not the first time that the debate about processed products has been raised.
In 2019, KEPCO targeted four locations, including the Fisheries Cooperative Federation’s Incheon Processing and Logistics Center.
A lawsuit was filed for damages.
‘Marine Dry’, a marine product for military supply, is not a marine product.
They demand that they pay a penalty of 4.3 billion won for using agricultural electricity.
In three years, the lawsuit was KEPCO’s defeat.
There are many interpretations of aquatic products, and the terms and conditions do not clearly state them.
Above all, that is the reason it should be interpreted in favor of customers who use electricity.
Extract from opinion
“Seafood can be interpreted in many ways, so the meaning cannot be said to be clear.
It needs to be interpreted in favor of the customer, the defendant.”
There is only a difference between aquatic and agricultural products,
It is like the situation where KEPCO imposed penalty against farmers.
In the absence of clear grounds, based on KEPCO’s favorable opinion criteria
Only farmers were subject to conflict.
KEPCO insists that the legal proceedings with the Cooperative Fisheries and enforcement of penalties against farmers this time be separate.
Enhancing conflict like this?
KEPCO acknowledged that guidelines and guidelines were not sufficient and that the criteria for the retrospective period were not clear.
[기자]
“Shouldn’t there be a (crackdown) if it can’t be applied retroactively without a clear standard in the first place?”
[한전 관계자]
“I can’t explain clearly how (the conflict) happens because it’s part of the scene, but
Since when did you do it, then how long since then? There will be cases where it will be direct with the user. These parts will come and go.”
KEPCO has already lost a lawsuit regarding penalties for aquatic products and processed aquatic products.
If it is normal, after that, KEPCO
Of course, you should have reviewed the standards for agricultural products and processed agricultural products.
However, the conflict was somewhat intensified last year without establishing a standard.
After the MBC report, it is expected that many Jeollanam-do farmers have been harmed by clashes without standards.
Through the public officials in charge of each city and county, identify the low temperature warehouse currently operated and check if there are any cases of damage.
launch an investigation.
Gurye Council is reviewing a class action lawsuit with farmers.
The National Federation of Farmers’ Associations is finding out if there is similar compensation in other areas.
“Ah, then I’ll have to crack down more often so there’s no misunderstanding.”
However, KEPCO got an unexpected response.
It means more frequent clashes on processed agricultural products such as kimchi. KEPCO’s rationale is as follows.
Because they often go out into fights and leadership and are often caught, the words ‘I didn’t inform you’ and ‘the punishment period is long’ are words.
I mean, it won’t come out.
This happened because standards were not established for agricultural products and processed agricultural products.
It is said that it will only strengthen the conflict without discussion with the farmers who are consumers.
Just as farmers use agricultural electricity to mine digital currency,
I’m not saying don’t address fraudulent use.
In a situation where the court has already ruled that imposing a penalty on processed fishery products is not right
Farmers, of course, have no choice but to question the conflict on agricultural produce.
However, if you only respond to these user questions with conflicts, not conversations,
“KEPCO’s campaign is to lead the use of electricity in the right direction.
That’s not the purpose, it’s just focused on getting the penalty paid.”
Criticism from farmers is sure to grow.
