HomeCasesCase No. 2025가단214167

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. 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. 2025가단214167

S.D. Seoul · Jan 13, 2026

South KoreaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytrial

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

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

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law
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.

Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 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)Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Pedro Paulo Mansur Pagano Sampaio v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.C.D. California · Jul 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Helm No. 21 Pty Limited v Mosman Municipal CouncilNSW LEC · Jul 1, 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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

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

Questions this record answers

What happened in Case No. 2025가단214167?

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?

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.