Arya News - The administrative body of the court is reviewing legislative revisions, amending court procedures such as fines and other means to weed out legal evidence created by AI.
SEOUL – South Korea’s judicial branch is stepping up its response to the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings, as AI hallucinations have led attorneys to cite nonexistent “ghost precedents” in their legal submissions, according to the National Court Administration.
The administrative body of the court is reviewing legislative revisions, amending court procedures such as fines and other means to weed out legal evidence created by AI.
Judges are increasingly raising concerns over plaintiffs and attorneys citing nonexistent cases and statutes during court proceedings.
“In written judgments, I used to point out nonexistent cases cited by lawyers in footnotes,” said one judge at a court in Seoul. “Now, there are so many that I point them out in brackets in the main text.”
“It is more time-consuming now, because I have to go through each cited case,” the judge added.
Citing cases
In one case reported by the Korean-language daily JoongAng Ilbo, an attorney handling a case at the Daegu High Court cited a nonexistent Supreme Court precedent in a legal filing. When the court requested clarification, the attorney cited another case that also did not exist.
In another case, a lawyer in Gwangju cited Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act but described legal content unrelated to the provision. At the Ulsan District Court, an attorney cited an unrelated Supreme Court precedent, later acknowledging that they “did not properly review the content after looking up the precedent using Google Gemini.”
Courts are increasingly calling out such citations. In a written judgment in an investment-related case at the Seoul Southern District Court, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that “the defendant’s claims are based on precedents that do not exist.”
“An excessive amount of time goes into the review process as judges confirm cases, keeping open the possibility that the attorney may simply have made a typo,” another judge said.
Courts consider fines, internal AI system
In response, the judiciary is pushing for a legislative amendment that would allow courts to fine attorneys who submit statutes or precedents.
It is also seeking to amend court procedure rules to require parties to disclose whether they used AI in preparing their submissions.
Currently, courts may respond to the misuse of AI by restricting arguments, requesting disciplinary measures against attorneys or imposing litigation costs if proceedings are delayed due to AI misuse.
In February, the judiciary added a function to the Judicial Information Disclosure Portal that allows users to verify whether court case numbers exist. It also distributed a guidebook to judges on using AI to detect precedents. The guidebook includes AI prompts that allow judges to check the authenticity of cited cases.
Meanwhile, the National Court Administration said it has secured 16.1 billion won ($10.6 million) to introduce its own internal AI system.
In February, the NCA launched a pilot version of an AI-powered trial support system loaded with Supreme Court precedents and written judgments, practical manuals and legal commentaries. The judiciary has completed the first phase of the four-stage project and is also pushing to introduce generative AI into the system.