HomeCasesCase No. 2024가단144734

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Case No. 2024가단144734

D. Incheon · Sep 9, 2025

South KoreaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In an Incheon District Court, Bucheon Branch loan case decided in September 2025, the judgment noted that the Supreme Court authority offered by the defendant could not be found. Reporting quotes a court official who said the wording likely signaled an AI-generated fictitious citation.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. Incheon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. Incheon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtD. Incheon

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateSep 9, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law

Questions this record answers

What happened in Case No. 2024가단144734?: In an Incheon District Court, Bucheon Branch loan case decided in September 2025, the judgment noted that the Supreme Court authority offered by the defendant could not be found. Reporting quotes a court official who said the wording likely signaled an AI-generated fictitious citation.
Why does Case No. 2024가단144734 matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in D. Incheon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Case No. 2024가단144734?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Case No. 2024가단144734 summary?: The recorded source is v.daum.net. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Paige Warthen v. Barclays Bank Delaware (Warthen I, II, III)D. Maryland · Jul 13, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Julia Rose v. Arts Bonita, Inc., et al.M.D. Florida · Jul 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Birsingh v. Little Wheel, LLC, et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMSE.D. Missouri · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re Lisa CatoD. D.C. (Bankruptcy) · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

v.daum.net

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Questions this record answers

What happened in Case No. 2024가단144734?

Why does Case No. 2024가단144734 matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Case No. 2024가단144734?

Which source supports this Case No. 2024가단144734 summary?

The recorded source is v.daum.net. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.