AIPolicyTracker
Menu

Transparency and disclosure: AI obligations

Practical requirements extracted from policy instruments, with the source article, the actors they bind, evidence examples and original framework mappings. Legal requirements are marked; everything else is voluntary guidance.

jurisdiction: south-korea × category: transparency ×

3 results

Results

Legal requirement transparency South Korea

AI business operators must label generative AI output and clearly flag realistic synthetic media

Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust · Article 31(2) and 31(3)

An AI business operator that provides generative AI or a product or service using it must indicate that the output was generated by generative AI. Where the operator provides content such as virtual sound, images or video that is hard to distinguish from reality, it must clearly notify users that the content is AI-generated, in a manner that does not impair a work's artistic or creative expression where that applies. Detailed methods are left to Presidential Decree and ministry guidance.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review or legal advice) Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirement transparency South Korea

AI business operators must notify users in advance that a product or service runs on high-impact or generative AI

Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust · Article 31(1)

An AI business operator that provides a product or service operated by high-impact AI or by generative AI must notify users in advance that the product or service is based on such AI. The notice is owed before use and is the entry point of the Act's transparency chapter; failure to give it can attract an administrative fine after a corrective order.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review or legal advice) Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Legal requirement transparency South Korea

Operators of high-impact AI must be able to explain outputs and the main criteria behind them

Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust · Article 34(1)

Operators of high-impact AI must put in place measures to explain the AI's final results, the main criteria used to reach them, and an overview of the training data, to the extent that this is technically feasible. The duty targets explainability of the system's decisions to users and affected people rather than full disclosure of the model.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 (a factual check against the official source, not a legal review or legal advice) Applies from 22 Jan 2026
Search

Frequently asked questions

What is an obligation on this site?
A single practical requirement pulled out of an instrument and stated on its own: keep a risk management system, log incidents, document training data, provide human oversight, and so on. Each one cites the article or section it comes from so you can check it against the source.
Does a voluntary obligation have legal force?
No, and every obligation is labelled either a legal requirement or voluntary guidance. Voluntary items still matter in practice, because procurement questionnaires and auditors ask about them, but only the binding ones carry legal consequence.
How do I find the obligations that apply to my organisation?
Filter by jurisdiction, category, actor, sector or use case. The applicability check asks a short set of questions and returns the duties that may reach you. It is an educational screen, not a legal determination, and it says so.
Why do some instruments have no obligations listed?
Because nobody has broken them out yet. Most instruments are recorded at summary level first; obligations are added jurisdiction by jurisdiction. The coverage and open-gaps pages publish exactly what is missing rather than hiding it.