Operators of high-impact AI must prepare user-protection measures and keep records of their safety and trust measures
Download: JSON · MarkdownUnder AI Basic Act, Article 34(1)
What this label means
- Verified
- — a named reviewer opened the official source and confirmed the record; the date and the reviewer are shown.
- Pending review
- — linked to the official source and in the queue for a reviewer to confirm.
- Source-linked
- — linked to the official source, not yet confirmed by a reviewer.
On this page 9 sections
In brief
Operators of high-impact AI must prepare user-protection measures and keep records of their safety and trust measures is a legal requirement under AI Basic Act in South Korea (Article 34(1)). It applies from 22 January 2026. The record carries 2 evidence examples and mappings to 2 frameworks.
- Instrument
- AI Basic Act
- Jurisdiction
- South Korea
- Nature
- Legal requirement
- Source reference
- Article 34(1)
- Applies from
- 22 January 2026
- Who it binds
- Provider / developer, Deployer / user organisation, Public authority / government body
- Evidence examples
- 2
- Framework mappings
- ISO/IEC 42001:2023, NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0
- Controls that meet it
- 2
- Official source
- Open official text
- Verification
- Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026
What does it require?
Operators of high-impact AI must prepare and implement a plan to protect users, and must prepare and keep documents describing the measures they take to secure the AI's safety and reliability, so that they can be shown to the Ministry of Science and ICT on request. Further items may be added by Presidential Decree, and the ministry may publish guidelines on how to meet these duties.
Practical action
Write a user-protection plan for each high-impact system and keep a dated file of the safety and trust measures applied to it.
Who does it apply to?
AI business operators providing high-impact AI or products and services based on it.
Applies from:
Which controls meet this duty?
Satisfies: the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports: it contributes but the duty needs more. Each control page lists every other duty it serves, so work done once can be counted once.
-
satisfiesProcessProduct or model owner · at launch and on material changeTechnical documentation, model cards and instructions for use
Serves 14 recorded duties · evidence: Technical documentation file, Model card or deployer information pack, Instructions for use
Documentation of safety and reliability measures.
-
supportsPolicyExecutive sponsor for AI · annualAI governance policy and accountability structure
Serves 16 recorded duties · evidence: AI policy, Board or executive approval of the AI policy, AI governance forum minutes
User-protection plan and ownership.
Templates that cover this duty
Generated from the records. Free · no account · links emailed to your work address. This duty is cited in each file with its source reference and a link back here.
- AI System Inventory
Register · XLSX and DOCX · v6
- AI Acceptable Use Policy
Policy · DOCX · v1
- AI Governance Policy and RACI
Policy · DOCX and XLSX · v5
- ISO/IEC 42001 Gap Assessment and Statement of Applicability
Assessment · XLSX · v3
What evidence would a reviewer expect?
| Evidence | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| User protection plan | document | |
| Safety and reliability measures file | record |
Framework mappings
Original editorial crosswalks. They cite clause numbers only and reproduce no standard text; confidence reflects how direct the mapping is.
See every South Korea duty mapped this way →
| Framework | Reference | Note | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | Clause 7.5; Annex A.6.2.7, A.9.3 | Documented information, technical documentation and objectives for responsible use. | medium |
| NIST AI RMF 1.0 | GOVERN 1.4, MANAGE 4.1 | Documentation and post-deployment user protection. | medium |
Frequently asked questions
Is this a legal requirement?
Yes. It is a legal requirement under AI Basic Act (Article 34(1)).
Who must comply with this obligation?
AI business operators providing high-impact AI or products and services based on it.
When does this obligation apply?
It applies from 22 January 2026.
What evidence shows compliance?
A reviewer would expect: User protection plan; Safety and reliability measures file.
Which frameworks map to this obligation?
It is mapped to ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Clause 7.5; Annex A.6.2.7, A.9.3, NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 GOVERN 1.4, MANAGE 4.1. These are editorial crosswalks with a stated confidence, not official mappings.
Which controls satisfy this obligation?
Technical documentation, model cards and instructions for use; AI governance policy and accountability structure.
What should an organisation do in practice?
Write a user-protection plan for each high-impact system and keep a dated file of the safety and trust measures applied to it.
Cite this record
AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Operators of high-impact AI must prepare user-protection measures and keep records of their safety and trust measures (AI Basic Act)” [AIPT-OBL-0066, verified 26 September 2026 by Bhaskar Bhatt]. https://aipolicytracker.org/id/AIPT-OBL-0066 (accessed 8 November 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.
Permanent id AIPT-OBL-0066: it never changes or gets reused, and its address keeps working if this page moves.
Cite the official text alongside it: Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust (AI Basic Act, Act No. 20676), Korea Ministry of Government Legislation, National Law Information Center, https://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=268543.
BibTeX
@misc{aipolicytracker2026_operatorsofhighimpactaim,
author = {{AIPolicyTracker}},
title = {{Operators of high-impact AI must prepare user-protection measures and keep records of their safety and trust measures (AI Basic Act)}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/south-korea-ai-basic-act-art-34-high-impact-ai-user-protection-and-documentation}},
url = {https://aipolicytracker.org/obligations/south-korea-ai-basic-act-art-34-high-impact-ai-user-protection-and-documentation},
urldate = {2026-11-08},
note = {Data licensed CC BY 4.0. Accessed 8 November 2026}
}
Change history
No change to this record's tracked fields has been recorded since 15 October 2026, when field-level history began.
Similar obligations in other instruments
- Use high-risk AI as instructed, monitor it and inform affected people — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers must meet the full set of provider duties for high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers must supply conformity evidence and log access to authorities on request — EU AI Act, European Union
- Non-EU providers must appoint an EU authorised representative for high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Deployers, distributors and importers must assume provider duties when they rebrand or substantially modify high-risk AI — EU AI Act, European Union
- Law-enforcement deployers must obtain authorisation for post-remote biometric identification and report annually — EU AI Act, European Union
- Providers of GPAI models must notify the Commission within two weeks of meeting the systemic-risk threshold — EU AI Act, European Union
- Non-EU providers of GPAI models must appoint an EU authorised representative — EU AI Act, European Union
Disclaimer: informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult a qualified lawyer before acting.