[Op-Ed] With 15 Million Pet Owners, the Animal Protection Act Needs Reform

Loopholes in the subsidy payment system must be addressed, and realistic measures are needed to prevent misconduct

Rather than relying on tax-funded subsidies, the system should be improved so that operations can legally cover their costs

In an era of 15 million pet owners, animal-related laws and institutions are steadily evolving in step with the growing pet-owning population. The pet industry continues to expand despite the economic downturn and is expected to keep growing. This indicates that public perceptions of companion animals have changed.

As the realities of puppy mills and breeding farms have recently come to light, pet shops have developed a negative image, and more people are choosing to adopt from shelters for abandoned and lost animals instead of purchasing from pet shops. At the same time, regrettable cases of people exploiting goodwill and loopholes in the system have also increased, calling for caution.

Adoption of abandoned and lost animals generally takes place in two ways. First, there is adoption through municipal animal protection centers. When an abandoned or lost animal is reported and taken into a municipal animal protection center, it is posted for 10 days on the animal protection management system designated by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. If no owner appears during that period, the local government automatically acquires ownership of the animal and transfers it to an adoption applicant. To reduce the adopter’s financial burden, support is provided in the form of a subsidy of 150,000 to 250,000 won per animal, free enrollment in pet insurance, and various benefits for one year.

Second, there is rescue and protection carried out directly by individual volunteers or groups known as rescuers. Rescuers personally save animals in danger, then take them to a hospital for examination and treatment. They then look for suitable adopters and place the animals with them. In this process, they often request a certain amount as an adoption fee under the name of a “responsibility fee.” This fee is intended to offset expenses incurred during rescue and treatment and is based on the rescuer’s voluntary goodwill.

As adoption of abandoned dogs has surged, controversies surrounding the practice of charging responsibility fees have also grown sharply. Supporters of such fees argue that they serve as a safeguard against people treating life lightly because the adoption is free, and that they reduce the likelihood of abandonment. They also maintain that the fees are the minimum necessary to cover activity costs such as hospital bills and spay/neuter surgery incurred in the course of rescue and protection.

However, the legal community sees it differently. Since a “sale” means “one party promises to transfer property rights to the other party, and the other party promises to pay the price” (Article 563 of the Civil Act), under current law, where animals are treated as property, transferring an abandoned or lost animal in exchange for payment can be regarded as a sale. Under the Animal Protection Act, this can be classified as animal abuse, and if a rescuer who is not registered as an animal seller accepts a responsibility fee, that rescuer may be subject to criminal punishment.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has interpreted the issue to mean that “even if a rescuer of an abandoned or lost animal spent more than the responsibility fee, if the rescuer received money when sending the rescued animal for adoption, that constitutes capturing and selling the animal.” However, some officials in animal protection divisions at local governments have taken a different view. This inconsistency in the application of the law has been pointed out as a problem. Such differences in interpretation between upper-level and lower-level agencies create legal confusion, and cases exploiting this loophole are increasing.

These days, countless rescuers of abandoned dogs and related groups can be found easily through social media. Unless they are large incorporated associations, they are usually groups formed voluntarily by volunteers. As more people become interested and want to participate, and as donations increase, many register as nonprofit organizations for management purposes and to secure transparency. The way these groups operate is generally similar, from rescue to adoption.

A rescuer referred to as the group’s leader may draw people in by appealing for temporary foster care for a pitiful puppy rescued from a breeding farm, but afterward all the burden is shifted to the foster caregiver. Animal hospitals demand unexpected expenses, and the foster caregiver must bear all the costs of care.

The adoption process can also produce bewildering situations. Additional adoption fees may be demanded even though the adoption was presented as free on the surface, or donations may be requested under the pretext of delaying the transfer of ownership, even though no such condition appeared in the initial promotional materials. In some cases, large numbers of people are mobilized in group chats to apply psychological pressure, or the return of the dog is threatened using ownership as leverage while donations are continuously extorted.

These groups raise donations by presenting themselves as protectors of pitiful animals and appealing to people’s sympathy with a benevolent image. Yet there are many cases in which funds gathered in good faith are not managed transparently and are diverted for personal gain. Donations are collected on the grounds of insufficient hospital expenses, but the dog in question may fail to receive treatment, or the group may not even pay the hospital bill and instead become the subject of public debt accusations. Such opaque finances give rise to suspicions of embezzlement and tax evasion.

There were even cases registered on the 1365 donation portal as organizations soliciting donations, yet showing actual fundraising results of 0 won. Many groups also have no publicly disclosed information on the National Tax Service website, suggesting that tax leakage may be considerable. Some have even dressed themselves up as crusaders for justice in order to attract donations while misleading the public by turning certain industries into targets of blame.

For example, there is nonprofit group P, which mainly rescues and protects certain popular purebred dogs. Even among mixed breeds, it tends to focus on artificially bred popular types such as Poochon, Pomspitz, Maltipoo, Pomsky, and Pomchi. At the same time, it advertises on social media that it rescues abandoned dogs from municipal animal protection centers, illegal breeding farms, and closed pet shops.

Because there is a legal limit on the number of dogs one person may adopt, the group uses irregular methods to adopt as many dogs as possible in order to save even one more puppy at risk of euthanasia. For abandoned dogs adopted from local governments, adopters pledge to comply with requirements such as “I will not use the adopted animal for commercial purposes (consumption, breeding, sale, etc.)” and “I will not abandon or give up the adopted animal.” If the animal is readopted, this may constitute fraudulent receipt of subsidies due to noncompliance with those requirements, meaning that despite their good intentions, they may in practice become subject to punishment. Although the group receives public donations, its fundraising performance is recorded as 0 won, its financial records are undisclosed, and even medical expense receipts are thoroughly shrouded in secrecy.

Another abandoned-dog group, C, rescues and protects certain rescue dogs and advertises that there is no adoption fee. It charges only actual costs such as spay/neuter surgery or dental scaling, accompanied by receipts. It may also encourage monthly donations of 10,000 to 20,000 won. Ownership of the abandoned dog is transferred within one month after adoption. As a result, adopters feel less burdened or pressure and are freer with regard to donations. The group even operates while disclosing donation details and its financial statements.

Both groups rescue and protect abandoned and lost animals, collect responsibility fees or adoption fees, and place the animals for adoption. Both are nonprofit organizations that began from the goodwill of individual volunteers. Yet the paths they have taken are completely different. Their methods of charging adoption fees and transferring ownership leave room for them to be regarded as sales transactions and commercial operations. Lawyers specializing in animal rights have expressed concern that, even if done in good faith, “the buying and selling of abandoned and lost animals is punishable under current law not only for the seller but also for the buyer,” adding that this demonstrates “the limits of the current system.” Misconduct disguised as protection of abandoned and lost animals undermines the purpose of animal protection and wastes taxpayers’ money.

There have been many incidents. One animal protection activist fraudulently received and misappropriated about 40 million won in government subsidies by pretending to adopt abandoned and lost animals, then made profits by having them readopted overseas. There was also the 2023 case in which a veterinarian was investigated by the police for conspiring to issue false medical expense receipts. Nor can one forget the abandoned-dog shelter that posted on social media about a dog hit by a car for four days while concealing the fact that it had died on the very day it was rescued, thereby collecting 6.09 million won in donations. Another case that aroused public outrage involved the head of an organization being arrested after collecting donations under the pretense of helping animals rescued from dog farms and then using the funds personally.

Such incidents have only reinforced the negative perception that donating to animal rescue is pointless. More broadly, we should seriously consider whether the current law, which leads to waste of taxpayers’ money, is truly practical.

Regulatory laws hastily created under the influence of a small number of groups can become obstacles to the industry. Under the law of supply and demand, someone will continue to rescue and place abandoned and lost animals. There will still be people willing to adopt despite responsibility fees or adoption fees. Otherwise, the number of abandoned dogs overflowing in the streets or being euthanized in municipal shelters would surge to an unmanageable level. Unless the system changes, this structure inevitably forces someone to keep playing the villain.

Rescuing, protecting, and placing animals for adoption involves substantial management costs, and responsibility fees or adoption fees may not be enough to cover them. In that case, it is only right to honestly explain that operating is difficult and ask for help. Regrettably, under current law there is no way to make a living through animal rescue work. It is a task that must be carried out from beginning to end in the capacity of a volunteer, and it is difficult to continue without a spirit of sacrifice. Unless one has sufficient personal financial means, one has no choice but to rely on supporters.

Because the Civil Act defines animals as property, the Animal Protection Act will also remain heavily constrained unless the legal status of animals changes. The government should present more realistic measures, rather than merely strengthening regulations to address loopholes in the subsidy payment system and prevent misconduct by animal protection groups and activists. It should also improve the system so that activists can legally cover their costs and operate without undue difficulty, rather than simply subsidizing them indiscriminately with tax money.

Juyeon Oh

Intern Researcher, Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [칼럼] 반려동물 인구 1500만 시대, 재정비가 필요한 동물보호법

Author: Ju-yeon Oh

Date: 2025-01-22

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=free_opinion&idx=27278