🔍 Read the full analysis: The State Of Fake Precedents In Korean Courts, According To 360 Judges on ThorstenMeyerAI.com
TL;DR
South Korea’s National Court Administration published survey results on November 2, 2026, after 360 judges responded to questions about fake or distorted citations. About 80% of responding civil, family and administrative judges said they had encountered them; the administration plans to propose procedural-law changes to allow fines. The survey measures judges’ reported experiences, not the share of court filings containing false material.
South Korea’s National Court Administration said a survey of 360 judges found that about 80% of responding judges handling civil, family and administrative cases had encountered false or distorted legal citations. Published November 2, 2026, the results have prompted calls for rules to address citations that judges say can burden opposing parties and delay proceedings; the administration plans to propose procedural-law changes allowing fines.
The survey was conducted from October 6 to 16 among judges at courts of all levels. The court administration said the roughly 80% figure applies to responding judges handling civil, family and administrative cases, not to all judges or all court filings. A separate count reported by the Korean daily Kyunghyang Shinmun puts the number of respondents across the survey who said they had encountered fake citations at 243 of 360, or 67.5%. That figure is not printed in the administration’s release.
Among judges who reported encountering false citations in the relevant questions, 196 (80.7%) identified precedents that did not exist, while 159 (65.4%) cited real precedents presented with false content. The survey also recorded reports of false or nonexistent statutes and legal publications. Multiple answers were allowed, and the percentages use the respondents to each question as their denominator.
Judges named both litigants and lawyers as sources of the material: 164 (69.5%) selected parties acting on their own, and 136 (57.6%) selected lawyers representing parties or acting as defense counsel. These responses identify who judges said had submitted such material; they do not establish that every person or lawyer knowingly filed a false citation. The release described examples including invented judgments formatted like Supreme Court decisions, real rulings misrepresented in filings, and unedited text from AI conversations.
91.7% of respondents called for an institutional response, with 64.8% describing one as very necessary. The most frequently selected measures were a legal basis for fines (61.4%), a duty to verify cited precedents (61.1%) and a duty to disclose AI use (60.6%). The survey allowed multiple selections. The administration plans to propose changes to the Civil and Criminal Procedure Acts to permit fines, according to the source report.
Proposed Rules for False Citations
False citations can impose costs beyond the person who files them. The National Court Administration said fabricated or inaccurate authorities create an unnecessary verification burden for opposing parties and may obstruct the speedy progress of trials. A judge must also establish whether a cited ruling exists and whether it supports the argument attributed to it.
The reported involvement of both unrepresented parties and licensed lawyers means the issue is not limited to people using AI without legal assistance. If procedural amendments are proposed and adopted, fines could give courts a formal response, while verification and disclosure duties could place clearer expectations on legal representatives and litigants. The survey itself, however, does not show how often false citations occur in filings or whether AI caused each instance.
Popular right now
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Over-Ear Noise-Cancelling Headphones, Hazelnut Taupe
Shark HydroVac MessMaster Cordless Wet Dry Vacuum and Mop Combo, AW261
Dreame H12 Pro Wet and Dry Vacuum Mop
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Court Survey Was Framed
The National Court Administration is the administrative arm of South Korea’s Supreme Court. Its November 2 release was titled “Results of the survey on citations of AI-generated false precedents and similar material.” It said AI hallucinations can produce references to nonexistent or false precedents and linked those citations to added verification work and possible delays.
The survey asked judges at courts of all levels about what they had encountered. Its headline finding concerns judges handling civil, family and administrative cases. The broader 67.5% figure comes from Kyunghyang Shinmun’s report of 243 affirmative responses among all 360 participants, rather than from a number stated directly in the court administration’s release. Keeping those populations separate matters: the two figures use different denominators and should not be treated as interchangeable.
The source report also highlights a translation discrepancy in an English-language account of the results. The Korean release says 164 judges selected the litigants themselves as a source of false citations. An English version published by The Korea Herald, republishing a Yonhap account, described the figure as judges saying they themselves had cited false precedents. The Korean wording does not say that judges admitted to filing them.
What the Survey Cannot Establish
The administration’s release does not state how many judges were invited, provide the full wording of the questions, or establish how representative the 360 respondents are of the judiciary. It records what judges said they had seen, not an audit of court documents. The results therefore cannot show what proportion of filings contain false citations, how many cases were affected, or how many citations came from AI rather than another source.
The reported categories may overlap because respondents could select multiple answers. The available source material also does not provide the full table of proposed measures, details of the planned legislative text, or a timetable for submitting it. It is not yet clear what safeguards or standards would apply before a court could impose a fine.
Procedural Amendments Await Details
The National Court Administration plans to propose amendments to the Civil and Criminal Procedure Acts that would provide a legal basis for fines over false citations. The source material does not give a date for the proposal or describe the specific language it will contain. Any amendment would need to proceed through the relevant legislative process before new fines could take effect.
Further details to watch include how the proposal defines false or distorted citations, what verification or AI-disclosure duties it would create, and how courts would distinguish deliberate misrepresentation from an unintentional error. For now, the survey documents judges’ reported experiences and preferences; it does not announce an enacted rule or a new penalty already in force.
Key Questions
What did the South Korean judges’ survey find?
The National Court Administration reported that about 80% of responding judges handling civil, family and administrative cases had encountered false or distorted citations. Among the relevant responses, 196 judges identified nonexistent precedents and 159 identified real precedents cited with false content.
Did eight in ten of all 360 judges report encountering fake citations?
No. The roughly 80% figure applies to responding civil, family and administrative judges. Kyunghyang Shinmun reported that 243 of all 360 respondents, or 67.5%, said they had encountered fake citations. The court administration’s release did not print that overall figure.
Did the survey find that lawyers submitted fake citations?
Judges could identify more than one source. 136 respondents (57.6%) selected lawyers acting as representatives or defense counsel, while 164 (69.5%) selected parties themselves. These are reports by judges and do not establish that every submission was intentional.
Are fines already in force for false citations?
The source report says the National Court Administration plans to propose changes to the Civil and Criminal Procedure Acts to allow fines. It does not report that those amendments have been enacted or that a new fine is currently in force.
Can the survey show how often AI creates fake legal citations?
No. The survey records judges’ reported experiences with false or distorted material. The release does not quantify the share of court filings containing such citations or determine how many were generated by AI.
Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com
