CONTENTS
- 1. AI Regulation | Framework Act, Enforcement Decree, and Current Status of the Regulatory Environment
- - The Emergence of Regulatory Risk
- 2. AI Regulation | Legal Risks That May Actually Arise
- - The Need for a Regulatory Response
- 3. AI Regulation | Scope of Response
- - Integrated Response to Investigations and Disputes
- - The Practical Benefits Companies Gain
- 4. AI Regulation | If You Need Assistance?
- - Daeryun's Support System
1. AI Regulation | Framework Act, Enforcement Decree, and Current Status of the Regulatory Environment
AI regulation began in earnest, centered on the “Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of a Basis for Trust (hereinafter the AI Framework Act)” and its enforcement decree, which took effect on January 22, 2026.
The AI Framework Act does not regulate all artificial intelligence, but for certain types it imposes obligations that have a direct effect on the overall business structure and service design.
∙ Generative artificial intelligence that generates text, images, video, and the like
∙ High-performance artificial intelligence with computing power above a certain level
For these, obligations are imposed, including a prior notice and labeling obligation, prior review of high-impact applicability, the establishment of a risk management plan, the preparation of an explanation plan, user protection measures, and retention of documents for five years.
The Emergence of Regulatory Risk
The challenge begins here.
▷Is this level of explanation sufficient to satisfy the duty to explain?
▷Does this labeling method meet the deepfake labeling requirements?
▷What level of risk management measures would be appropriate?
These issues lie at the intersection of technical assessment and legal interpretation, and they are difficult to resolve through internal compliance review alone.
Moreover, the AI Framework Act is currently in the early stage of its implementation, and the standards for interpretation and application are still being formed.
In addition, the enforcement decree, public notices, and guidelines are likely to be further specified through future enactment and amendment, and policy discussions at the level of the National Assembly and the government are also continuing.
Accordingly, companies need to comply with current regulations while also pursuing strategic responses at the legislative and institutional formation stage, such as submitting opinions on proposed amendments to subordinate legislation, coordinating joint responses across the industry, and engaging in policy consultations in parallel.
2. AI Regulation | Legal Risks That May Actually Arise
A violation of AI regulation is not limited to the issue of administrative fines.
If the determination of high-impact applicability is made incorrectly, the matter may expand into the following risks.
∙ Commencement of a fact-finding investigation
∙ Media coverage and reputational risk
∙ Combined violations with the Personal Information Protection Act and industry-specific regulations
∙ Potential for damages claims and class disputes
In particular, for generative AI services, a violation of the labeling duty can directly damage platform credibility, and high-impact AI areas (such as recruitment, lending, and evaluation) carry a significant likelihood of being linked to disputes over discrimination and the infringement of fundamental rights.
Ultimately, the core of AI regulation goes beyond determining whether a violation has occurred and lies in how the regulatory authority interprets and enforces the matter.
Going further, for companies operating global businesses, conflicts with the EU AI Act, the GDPR, and overseas data transfer regulations may arise simultaneously, and the interpretation of domestic AI regulation may also affect strategies for responding to foreign regulations.
The Need for a Regulatory Response
AI regulation is an area in which administrative interpretation and the direction of enforcement, rather than the legal text itself, serve as the practical standard.
The following matters are difficult to decide through internal judgment alone, without communication with the regulatory authority.
∙ The scope of appropriateness for generative AI labeling methods
∙ The level of measures to secure safety and reliability and the scope of documentation
∙ The applicability of recognized exceptions and strategies for responding to fact-finding investigations
If a business is pursued through internal judgment alone while the interpretive standards remain unclear, there is a possibility that, depending on a later determination by the regulatory authority, a full redesign or suspension may be required.
Accordingly, beyond a review of the relevant statutes, the approach should include organizing the direction of interpretation in advance and, where necessary, consulting with the relevant authorities.
3. AI Regulation | Scope of Response
AI regulation is an area in which interpretive standards and policy direction are being formed during the early stage of enforcing newly enacted legislation.
Daeryun Law Firm supports companies, through strategic communication with the relevant authorities, so that they do not remain in a position of merely complying after the fact but can participate from the standard-setting stage.
∙ Support for inquiries to relevant ministries, requests for authoritative interpretation, and policy consultation
∙ Submission of opinions on the enactment and amendment of subordinate legislation and public notices, and policy consultation
∙ Establishment of joint response strategies at the level of industry associations and federations
∙ Advisory services for applications to the regulatory sandbox and demonstration exceptions and for negotiating exception conditions
Daeryun continuously monitors policy trends and analyzes the standards being formed in the early enforcement stage so that companies can actively participate in the standard-formation process rather than respond after the fact.
Integrated Response to Investigations and Disputes
AI regulation begins as a matter of administrative interpretation, but if it leads to a fact-finding investigation, a corrective order, or the imposition of administrative fines, it can quickly turn into the realm of disputes.
Daeryun provides an integrated support system without gaps, from regulatory and investigation responses through to administrative litigation.
∙ Responses to corrective orders and administrative fine dispositions and the conduct of administrative appeals and administrative litigation
∙ Design of defense strategies for combined-violation issues with industry-specific regulations (personal information, finance, medical, and others)
∙ Analysis of conflicts with global AI regulations (such as the EU AI Act) and the establishment of response strategies
By maintaining consistency of strategy from the policy consultation stage through the investigation and litigation stages, we protect both the continuity of the company's business and its corporate value at the same time.
The Practical Benefits Companies Gain
An AI regulation response carried out in parallel with strategic response work makes the following difference.
∙ Advance prevention of future fact-finding investigations, corrective orders, and reputational risk
∙ Design of a reasonable regulatory response structure that preserves the business model
∙ Proactive responses to changes in enforcement intensity arising from policy shifts
AI regulation is not a regulation intended to block technology but a standard that requires its responsible use.
That standard, however, can change depending on the policy environment and administrative interpretation.
For this reason, Daeryun approaches the matter as a field of policy response and risk management and assists companies in managing regulatory risk at a controllable level while maintaining their technological competitiveness.
4. AI Regulation | If You Need Assistance?
Responding to AI regulation is expanding into a management area directly connected to a company's business strategy.
In particular, AI regulation is expanding beyond technology regulation into a management risk connected to corporate value, investment, M&A, listing review, and ESG evaluation.
An interpretive error at the early stage can lead, beyond a simple administrative fine, to changes in the business model, delays in investment, and a decline in corporate value.
Daeryun's Support System
To respond to this environment, Daeryun Law Firm operates an integrated response system centered on its AI and Data Intelligence Group.
First, the AI Compliance Division diagnoses, in advance, the legal risks that may arise across all stages from AI adoption through operation, and it comprehensively reviews consistency with the Framework Act on AI, the Personal Information Protection Act, and industry-specific regulations.
In addition, through the Vertical AI Strategy Division, the firm reflects the regulatory environment of each industry, including finance, manufacturing, healthcare, and content, and supports strategic design that fits the business structure rather than addressing regulation alone.
Beyond this, the Cyber Security & Crisis Response Division establishes regulatory-agency response and external communication strategies when personal data leaks, hacking, or security incidents occur, and the Digital Forensics & e-Discovery Division builds the foundation for investigation and dispute response through electronic evidence analysis and the organization of facts.
When you need assessment of high-impact applicability, design of disclosure obligations, establishment of a risk management framework, or a strategy for responding to relevant agencies during AI adoption and expansion, please request AI legal advisory from Daeryun Law Firm.
From the policy formation stage through investigation response, the firm provides an uninterrupted, strategic regulatory response system.
