Saved Subscribe

Menu

AI compliance 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 ×

Keyword

Jurisdiction

Obligation category

Sector

AI use case

Actor

Binding

Reset

9 results

Legal requirement governance accountability South Korea

Foreign AI business operators above the threshold must designate a domestic representative in Korea

Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust · Article 36

An AI business operator without an address or place of business in Korea, whose user numbers or revenue meet the thresholds set by Presidential Decree, must designate in writing a domestic representative with an address in Korea. The representative handles the operator's duties under the Act, including submitting the Article 32 safety results, supporting high-impact AI confirmation and cooperating with fact-finding investigations, and the operator is treated as responsible for the representative's acts.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 Applies from 22 Jan 2026

Legal requirement governance accountability South Korea

Operators of high-impact AI must prepare user-protection measures and keep records of their safety and trust measures

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

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.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 Applies from 22 Jan 2026

Legal requirement human oversight South Korea

Operators of high-impact AI must ensure human management and supervision

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

Operators of high-impact AI must ensure that the AI is subject to human management and supervision, so that people remain able to monitor its operation and intervene in or override its outputs where those outputs may affect life, physical safety or fundamental rights.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 Applies from 22 Jan 2026

Legal requirement risk management South Korea

Operators of high-impact AI must establish and operate a risk management plan

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

An AI business operator that provides high-impact AI, or a product or service using it, must establish and operate a plan for managing the risks of that AI. High-impact AI is AI used in areas such as energy, drinking water, health care and medical devices, nuclear safety, biometric analysis for criminal investigation, decisions on recruitment or loans, transport, public services and education, where it may materially affect life, safety or fundamental rights.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 Applies from 22 Jan 2026

Legal requirement safety testing South Korea

Operators of AI above the compute threshold must run lifecycle risk management and report safety results

Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust · Article 32

An AI business operator whose AI system's cumulative training computation exceeds the threshold set by Presidential Decree must identify, assess and mitigate risks across the system's life cycle, build a risk management system to monitor and respond to safety incidents caused by the AI, and submit the results of these measures to the Minister of Science and ICT. The threshold and reporting form are set in the Decree.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 Applies from 22 Jan 2026

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 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 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 Applies from 22 Jan 2026

Voluntary guidance impact assessment South Korea

Operators of high-impact AI should assess its impact on fundamental rights before use

Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust · Article 35

An AI business operator that provides high-impact AI, or a product or service using it, is to make efforts to assess in advance the impact the AI may have on people's fundamental rights. The provision is drafted as an endeavour duty rather than a hard requirement, but public bodies procuring high-impact AI are directed to give preference to products that have undergone such an assessment, and the ministry may set assessment methods.

Verified against the official source 26 Sep 2026 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.