South KoreaAI Framework Act, Article 32 (safety-assurance duty for high-compute AI systems)
A citation is an address, not a summary. The first part names the law; what follows narrows it to the exact section, article or paragraph.
What follows is LexLint's own research summary of this law, not legal advice.
In force 8 months, effective 22 January 2026.
An AI governance rule binding public and private bodies.
As of 20 September 2026.
What it requires
- If your AI system was trained using cumulative compute of 10^26 floating-point operations or more, applies the most advanced AI technology currently in use, and could broadly and seriously affect people's life, physical safety or fundamental rights, identify, assess and mitigate risk across the system's full life cycle.
- Build a risk-management system that monitors and responds to AI-related safety accidents involving your system.
- Submit the results of implementing those two measures to the Ministry of Science and ICT, in the form and manner the Ministry sets by public notice.
- The Act states no duty to report a particular safety accident to the Ministry, and no period running from the moment you become aware of one.
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Minister of Science and ICT
What it reaches
How the hook was established
express
What makes it apply
Market targeting, User location
Obligation class
Governance, Reporting
What it makes you log
Logging duty
Article 32 never uses the words logs, records, event recording or audit trail; it requires the operator to identify, assess and mitigate risk across the AI system's life cycle, build a risk-management system that monitors and responds to safety accidents, and submit the results of implementing those two measures to the Ministry of Science and ICT. None of that can be shown without keeping some documentation of what was done, which is the implicit category's own test. Neither Article 32 nor its Enforcement Decree Article 24 names the record's contents, states how long it must be kept, or grants anyone a right to demand it beyond the one-time submission itself; Article 40's fact-investigation power, triggered by a suspected violation, sits in a different article.
- Kind
- Implicit
- As of
- 22 September 2026
- Provision
- Article 32(1)-(2)
- Trigger
- high_risk_systems
Who checks it
Audit expectation
none
What this law does
Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page.
Article 32 binds an AI business operator whose AI system was trained using cumulative compute at or above the threshold the Presidential Decree sets, and requires it to identify, assess and mitigate risk across the system's full life cycle and to build a risk-management system that monitors and responds to AI-related safety accidents. The operator must submit the results of implementing those measures to the Ministry of Science and ICT.
The Ministry sets the specific implementation method, and the manner of submitting those results, by public notice, matters the Act itself does not state. The Decree's threshold is met only where cumulative training compute reaches 10^26 floating-point operations or more, the system applies the most advanced AI technology currently in use, and its risk could broadly and seriously affect people's life, physical safety and fundamental rights.
Article 32 took effect on January 22, 2026, one year after the Act's promulgation. The submission is a periodic report of having that internal system in place rather than a notice triggered by a particular accident, and neither the Article nor the Decree states a period running from the moment an operator becomes aware of one.
When LexLint raises it
trains_modelsgenerates_content
Read the law
official statute portal, National Law Information Center (law.go.kr)
full article text obtained at the browser-render tier after the compliant tier served only a navigation shell, cross-checked against the Enforcement Decree's own Article 24 threshold definition
Every line above is drawn from the primary source linked here, read on the date shown. This is a research summary, not legal advice.