AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesCase No. 2025가단214167
Evidence review: metadata only. The linked page is generic, shared, or insufficiently case-specific. This page therefore preserves only the structured corpus baseline.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Case No. 2025가단214167

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Daum / Lawtimes reporting on Korean court decisions; linked document: v.daum.net. What AI Vortex adds.

S.D. Seoul · Jan 13, 2026

South KoreaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Seoul Southern District Court case 2025가단214167, decided January 13, 2026, the court rejected the defendant’s position because it relied on nonexistent precedents or nonexistent holdings rather than verifiable legal authority. The available reporting records no separate monetary sanction.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law || Misrepresented: Legal Norm
Why it matters now
Korean courts are now tracking AI hallucinations—international clients should assume no jurisdiction is safe for unverified cites.

Why this matter is tracked

In Seoul Southern District Court case 2025가단214167, decided January 13, 2026, the court rejected the defendant’s position because it relied on nonexistent precedents or nonexistent holdings rather than verifiable legal authority. The available reporting records no separate monetary sanction.

Operational lesson

Korean courts are now tracking AI hallucinations—international clients should assume no jurisdiction is safe for unverified cites.

Record details

CourtS.D. Seoul
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 13, 2026
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law
  2. Misrepresented: Legal Norm

Questions this record answers

What happened in Case No. 2025가단214167?
In Seoul Southern District Court case 2025가단214167, decided January 13, 2026, the court rejected the defendant’s position because it relied on nonexistent precedents or nonexistent holdings rather than verifiable legal authority. The available reporting records no separate monetary sanction.
Why does Case No. 2025가단214167 matter for legal AI risk?
Korean courts are now tracking AI hallucinations—international clients should assume no jurisdiction is safe for unverified cites.
What does the public record establish about Case No. 2025가단214167?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Case No. 2025가단214167 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.

Sabatini v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionC. Pennsylvania · Oct 14, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceIn the Matter of Gary Brown, Jr.AC Maryland · Oct 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceButler v. The Travelers Indemnity CompanySC Connecticut · Oct 7, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceCooper v. John Doe County Court Clerk et al.S.D. New York · Oct 5, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceSanchez v. Synchrony Bank N.A.S.D. California · Oct 1, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceMiller v. Colorado Department of RevenueD. Colorado · Sep 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in source

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.