THE ESSENTIALS IN 30 SECONDS

  • The Supreme Court surveyed 360 judges from October 6 to 16; 80.7% of those handling civil, family and administrative cases had seen nonexistent precedents cited.
  • Some 57.6% said lawyers representing parties had cited false precedents or other false information.
  • Nearly 92% of respondents want institutional measures, such as fines, verification duties and discipline for repeat offenders.

South Korea's Supreme Court on Monday, November 2, released a survey showing how often fabricated case law now reaches the country's courtrooms. The judiciary polled 360 judges between October 6 and 16 to measure the impact of AI "hallucinations", when a model presents invented information as fact.

What judges reported

Among judges handling civil, family and administrative cases, 80.7% (196 people) said they had seen citations of precedents that do not exist, according to The Korea Herald, which carried the Yonhap report. A further 65.4% reported citations of "false" precedents, which the survey listed as a separate category. Fewer had seen invented laws or regulations (16.9%) or fictitious academic papers (4.1%).

Lawyers are part of the picture: 57.6% of respondents said attorneys acting for parties had cited false precedents or other inaccurate material. The published figures do not always make the base for each percentage clear.

Nearly 92% of respondents said institutional measures are needed. Options raised include a legal basis for fines, mandatory verification of citations and disciplinary action against lawyers who repeatedly submit false information. An official at the National Court Administration said invented precedents can delay proceedings and called for effective countermeasures based on the results.

A problem the courts already know

The survey adds numbers to concerns the judiciary had already voiced. In June, The Korea Herald reported that the National Court Administration was seeking a law change allowing courts to fine attorneys who submit false statutes or precedents, and a rule requiring parties to disclose AI use in their filings. That report cited cases in Daegu, Gwangju, Ulsan and Seoul, including one lawyer who said they had not properly checked a precedent found with Google's Gemini.

The courts have also added a tool on the judicial information portal to check whether a case number exists, issued a guide for judges on spotting false citations, and set aside 16.1 billion won for an in-house AI system built on Supreme Court rulings.

Why it matters

South Korea is one of several jurisdictions where courts are confronting hallucinated citations. The new figures suggest the issue has moved from isolated incidents to a routine verification burden for judges, and it is likely to feed the debate over formal sanctions. No timetable for new rules was given.