Can You Write an Administrative Appeal Petition With ChatGPT? What AI-Drafted Petitions May Miss

Hello, this is Administrative Agent Jean.

“AI has become really good these days. Can’t I just use ChatGPT to write my administrative appeal petition?”

This is something many people are curious about.

And it is not entirely wrong.

In fact, AI can explain administrative appeal procedures fairly accurately. It can find statutory provisions and create a petition format.

There is also continued discussion that the quality of generative AI responses in the legal field is improving rapidly.

But there is a problem.

In August 2025, Judge Shin Jung-min of the Seoul Northern District Court, Civil Division 15, pointed out an issue involving case citations that appeared to have been suggested by AI in decision 2024GaDan171021, an objection-to-claim case.

Supreme Court decisions 2001Da43797 and 2007Da20234 cited by the plaintiff are both nonexistent case numbers.

Case numbers that looked plausible were submitted as if they were real precedents, and the court directly mentioned this issue in its judgment.

It is true that AI has become more accurate.

However, there are still cases where AI cannot perfectly distinguish between a plausible answer and a verified fact on its own.

In an administrative appeal petition, that difference can be critical.

Even When AI Says the Right Things, It May Not Be Enough for an Administrative Appeal

What matters in an administrative appeal is not just polished writing.

Even with the same facts, the persuasiveness of the written petition may differ depending on:

Which legal basis of the disposition is challenged
Which statutory requirement is argued to have been misapplied
In what order the facts are presented
Which evidence is attached to which argument

AI generally produces standardized answers.

But real administrative appeals turn on the facts of each individual case.

For example, if you are challenging a business suspension disposition, simply writing:

Please revoke the disposition because it is excessive.

is not enough.

You need to distinguish issues such as the legal basis of the disposition, which required facts were not satisfied, whether there was deviation or abuse of discretion, and whether there were procedural defects.

There is also a more fundamental difference.

There is no responsible party behind an AI output.

Even if AI presents a false precedent or misinterprets a statute and the petition is dismissed, AI does not bear legal or professional responsibility.

Therefore, when using AI for administrative appeal work, what matters more than “how naturally it writes” is who verifies the content and takes responsibility for it.

Points Often Missed in AI-Drafted Administrative Appeal Petitions

AI can help prepare a draft petition.

But when moving toward an actual filing document, several problems can repeatedly arise.

Failure to Identify the Exact Legal Basis of the Disposition

In an administrative appeal, it is necessary to accurately identify which disposition was made under which statute or regulation.

Simply writing:

This is a disposition for violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

may not be enough.

You need to connect which specific provision was applied and which requirement under that provision is at issue.

Writing only the name of the statute and identifying the exact legal basis of the disposition are different tasks.

Mixing Up the Claim Sought and the Reasons for the Claim

In an administrative appeal petition, the claim sought and the reasons for the claim have different roles.

The claim sought states what you are asking for.

For example:

The business suspension disposition of ○ days issued by the respondent to the claimant on April 20, 2026, shall be revoked.

By contrast, the reasons for the claim explain why the disposition should be revoked.

Facts, statutes, procedural defects, and discretion-related issues belong here.

If these two are mixed together, it may become unclear what exactly the claimant is challenging.

Even if AI creates a document that looks formally plausible, this distinction is important in the actual structure of an administrative appeal petition.

It May Cite Nonexistent Precedents or Case Numbers

This is one of the most well-known risks in using AI for legal work.

A case name or case number may look real, but when searched, it may not actually be found.

The Seoul Northern District Court case mentioned above illustrates this problem.

Therefore, any precedent suggested by AI must be checked again in an original database.

At minimum, the following three points should be verified directly:

Does the case number actually exist?
Does the content of the judgment match the way AI described it?
Can the precedent actually be applied to your case?

The fact that a case number exists and the fact that the case supports your argument are also separate issues.

Confirming Whether a Precedent Actually Exists Is the Starting Point

When using AI in legal or administrative work, the source is one of the first things that must be checked.

The content suggested by AI should be compared directly with official sources such as the National Law Information Center, court precedent databases, and administrative appeal decision databases.

There is nothing wrong with asking AI about precedents or administrative appeal decisions.

In fact, AI can be quite helpful in speeding up research and identifying issues.

But the final filing document is different.

Using AI as a research assistant and submitting AI output without verification are completely different acts.

The former is work efficiency.

The latter means accepting the risk that incorrect information may enter an official filing document.

Time Matters Even More in Administrative Appeals

You might think that if you later discover that AI created an incorrect petition, you can simply revise it.

The problem is that administrative appeals have deadlines.

Under Article 27 of the Administrative Appeals Act, an administrative appeal must generally be filed within 90 days from the date you became aware of the disposition.

You must also check the 180-day limit from the date the disposition was made.

In other words, while revising the petition repeatedly, searching for precedents again, and thinking through the response strategy, the filing period itself may pass.

Therefore, in administrative appeals, not only the quality of the document but also deadline management is part of case handling.

How Is the Administrative Appeal Filing Period Calculated?

Suppose, for example, that a business suspension disposition was served on April 20 and you became aware of the disposition on that day.

Generally, in calculating periods, the first day is not counted, so the period is counted from the following day.

The important point is not to think vaguely that “there are about 90 days left.”

You should check the actual available filing period based on the date you received the disposition notice, while also considering specific circumstances such as holidays or service issues.

Especially if some time has already passed since receiving the disposition notice, the priority is not refining the wording of the petition, but first checking whether the filing period still remains.

This Does Not Mean You Should Not Use AI

AI can be useful in administrative appeals.

For example, it can help with:

Understanding the structure of relevant statutes
Organizing potential issues related to a disposition
Arranging facts chronologically
Drafting written submissions
Summarizing long precedents or administrative appeal decisions
Organizing a list of supporting materials
Reviewing the structure of arguments

I also believe tools such as the Ministry of Government Legislation API and AI tools can improve efficiency in finding and organizing statutes, precedents, and administrative appeal decisions.

The problem is believing that the AI-generated result is the final answer.

AI can create drafts quickly.

However, it is still necessary to verify facts against official materials, select reasoning that actually applies to the case, and connect the arguments to the submitted documents.

What Ultimately Matters in an Administrative Appeal?

An administrative appeal petition is not a writing contest.

Elegant sentences do not mean the appeal will be accepted, and using many legal terms does not necessarily help.

The core questions are relatively simple.

Which disposition are you challenging?

What is the legal basis of that disposition?

Why was that law or regulation misapplied to your case?

What objective evidence can prove your argument?

These four points must be connected.

No matter how advanced AI becomes, it cannot replace the actual case record.

The real core of an administrative appeal is how to connect real-world evidence, such as the disposition notice, investigation materials, contracts, photos, CCTV footage, and written statements, to each argument.

If You Already Drafted a Petition With AI, What Should You Check?

If you have already used ChatGPT or another AI tool to draft an administrative appeal petition, it is advisable to recheck at least the following:

Is the name of the disposition authority accurate?
Are the disposition date and contents accurate?
Do the legal basis and statutory provisions for the disposition actually exist?
Do the cited precedents and administrative appeal decisions actually exist?
Does the reasoning of the precedent match the original text?
Are the claim sought and the reasons for the claim separated?
Are the arguments and supporting evidence connected?
Is the administrative appeal filing period still open?
If necessary, has suspension of execution also been considered?

If any of these points is uncertain, it is safer to check again before filing.

Closing

If you ask whether ChatGPT can write an administrative appeal petition, the answer is simple.

Yes, it can draft one.

AI can already provide substantial help in finding laws, organizing facts, and drafting documents.

But:

AI can write a petition.

and:

It is safe to submit an AI-generated petition as is.

are completely different statements.

Nonexistent precedents may be included, the exact legal basis of the disposition may be missed, and the core issue that should really be argued in the case may be omitted.

Above all, administrative appeals have a 90-day filing period.

If the deadline passes while you keep revising the AI output, the quality of the document itself may lose meaning.

Therefore, AI can be a useful tool in administrative appeals.

But what is ultimately needed is not the wording created by AI, but verified facts and laws, plus arguments and evidence structured for your own case.