Theory_of_Requirement_Facts/docs/workflows/legal-analysis-ko.md

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.