Case No. 2025가단214167
S.D. Seoul · Jan 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- S.D. Seoul
- Record ID
- case-no-2025가단214167-2026-01-13
- Observed outcome
- None Adjudicated
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
Fabricated: Case Law || Misrepresented: Legal Norm
Korean courts are now tracking AI hallucinations—international clients should assume no jurisdiction is safe for unverified cites.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- No tool named in source
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
v.daum.net
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.
Latest evidence review: Metadata Only (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.