Add prompt for collecting data on Theory of Requirement Facts in civil litigation

2026-08-26 15:07:55 +09:00
parent ce714dc0d3
commit f4d8a80e68
18 changed files with 4020 additions and 2 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
+# Legal Analysis Workflow — Republic of Korea Focus
+
+Apply this workflow to Korean-law tasks unless the task specifies another jurisdiction. For another jurisdiction, adapt the authority hierarchy and precedent rules explicitly.
+
+## 1. Intake and legal frame
+
+Identify before concluding:
+- governing jurisdiction;
+- legally relevant date or period;
+- procedural posture and tribunal;
+- parties and legal relationships;
+- requested remedy or decision;
+- stipulated, alleged, disputed, and missing facts;
+- applicable burdens, presumptions, and standards of review or proof.
+
+If one of these is outcome-determinative and absent, ask or branch the analysis.
+
+## 2. Issue decomposition
+
+Create an issue tree that distinguishes:
+- claim or legal basis;
+- constituent elements;
+- defenses, exceptions, exclusions, and limitation periods;
+- procedural prerequisites;
+- remedy, causation, damages, and enforcement questions;
+- constitutional, statutory, regulatory, administrative, and private-law interactions.
+
+Do not skip directly from a broad doctrine to a conclusion.
+
+## 3. Authority hierarchy and temporal validity
+
+For Korean law, ordinarily examine as applicable:
+- Constitution;
+- statutes;
+- presidential decrees;
+- ordinances of the Prime Minister or ministries;
+- local ordinances and rules;
+- administrative rules, notices, guidelines, and interpretations;
+- Constitutional Court and court decisions;
+- authoritative legislative history and official materials;
+- secondary commentary.
+
+For every material provision:
+- verify the text effective on the relevant date;
+- check promulgation and effective dates;
+- check amendment history, supplementary provisions, transitional rules, exceptions, and delegated legislation;
+- distinguish legal binding force from interpretive or practical weight.
+
+For decisions:
+- verify court, case number, decision date, type of disposition, and procedural posture;
+- read the operative reasoning or full text when available;
+- distinguish the actual holding from official summaries, headnotes, dicta, later commentary, and factual description;
+- identify later decisions that affirm, narrow, distinguish, criticize, or supersede the proposition;
+- characterize Korean precedent by its institutional and practical authority rather than mechanically importing common-law stare decisis terminology.
+
+## 4. Element-by-element application
+
+Use a matrix:
+
+| Issue/Element | Governing rule | Supporting facts | Opposing facts | Missing facts | Counterargument | Preliminary conclusion |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+For each element:
+- state the rule precisely;
+- identify the authority and its temporal applicability;
+- apply both favorable and unfavorable facts;
+- identify evidentiary or pleading gaps;
+- explain whether the result is rule-driven or fact-sensitive.
+
+## 5. Adverse review
+
+Actively test:
+- competing characterization of the transaction or conduct;
+- contrary statutory interpretation;
+- adverse or limiting decisions;
+- procedural bars, standing, jurisdiction, limitation, exhaustion, or burden failures;
+- remedy mismatch;
+- factual scenarios under which the conclusion reverses.
+
+If an adverse point cannot be resolved, preserve it as residual uncertainty rather than burying it.
+
+## 6. Citation integrity
+
+Never fabricate a case number, quotation, statutory text, or administrative interpretation.
+
+A legal authority entry should include, when available:
+- issuing body or court;
+- date;
+- case number or official identifier;
+- relevant provision or paragraph;
+- exact proposition supported;
+- authority weight;
+- verification status.
+
+Memory may suggest a search lead. It may not serve as decisive authority in a final legal conclusion.
+
+## 7. Output structure
+
+Unless another form is requested:
+
+1. Executive conclusion.
+2. Scope, assumptions, and legally relevant date.
+3. Facts and unresolved factual disputes.
+4. Issues presented.
+5. Governing law and authority hierarchy.
+6. Element-by-element application.
+7. Adverse authority and counterarguments.
+8. Remedy and procedural considerations.
+9. Conclusion by issue, with confidence and reversal conditions.
+10. Verification record and sources requiring human confirmation.
+
+Treat the result as a professional draft requiring review against the complete record and current official authorities.