Journal of Intellectual Property (J Intellect Property; JIP)

KCI Indexed
OPEN ACCESS, PEER REVIEWED

pISSN 1975-5945
eISSN 2733-8487
Research Article

Improvement Direction of Transparency Obligation Provision under the Framework Act on Artificial Intelligence: Focusing on the Necessity of Amendment to Exemption Provisions

1Law School, Pusan National University, Republic of Korea
2Attorney, Republic of Korea

Correspondence to Myungsoo Kang (msk0906@pusan.ac.kr)

Volume 21, Number 3, Pages 323-350, September 2026.
Journal of Intellectual Property 2026;21(3):323-350. https://doi.org/10.34122/jip.2026.21.3.323
Received on July 28, 2026, Revised on August 05, 2026, Accepted on September 04, 2026, Published on September 30, 2026.
Copyright © 2026 Korea Institute of Intellectual Property.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the article is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Abstract

Transparency obligations are central to artificial intelligence (AI) regulation. The Framework Act on AI and its Enforcement Decree outline specific provisions regarding these obligations. While stipulating transparency obligations in legislation can promote legal stability, it also represents limitations in clearly defining applicable standards. Critics have highlighted the ambiguity of transparency obligations under the current legal framework, noting that legal uncertainty will remain difficult to eliminate entirely, even if the relevant provisions are supplemented in the future. Furthermore, stipulating transparency obligations may hinder flexible responses to emerging technologies and unpredictable future scenarios. Crucially, the current mandatory-centric approach stems from a negative perception of AI technology and may be inconsistent with the promotion of AI development and utilization. Therefore, the approach to AI transparency obligations should shift from mandatory regulation toward minimum safeguard framework that enable AI service providers to mitigate liability. Additionally, aligning with legislative trends in major countries, the scope of exemption through voluntary guidelines should be expanded.
Keywords

transparency obligations, soft regulation, obligation provision, exemption provision, online service provider’s obligation

Notes

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

The author received manuscript fees for this article from Korea Institute of Intellectual Property.

Section