인공지능(AI) 단일법 제정 필요성과 행정법학의 과제

이효진 국민대학교 법학연구소 2023 법학논총 Vol.35 No.3

This article aims to discuss the legal basis for the necessity of the artificial intelligence law and the tasks of using artificial intelligence in administration. Korea is enacting laws for AI discipline. The goal of the Korean government is to establish norms to minimize the development and side effects of artificial intelligence technology. In order to maximize benefits and minimize risks, it is necessary to establish appropriate regulatory framework and independent governance. The European Union proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) in April 2021, developing from soft laws such as artificial intelligence ethical norms and guidelines. The AI Act builds independent governance and flexibly applies regulations from strict regulations to flexible regulations according to the risk-based approach. There are two ways to enact artificial intelligence legislation in Korea. First, revising and regulating individual laws related to artificial intelligence. Second, enacting the 'Artificial Intelligence Act' to enact general laws. The former and the latter comparison method can first examine whether AI-related laws have a specific framework for AI technology development, independent governance to secure the effectiveness of AI regulations, and whether they provide a venue for global exchanges including the government, business, school, and private sector. If there is a limit to artificial intelligence-related laws, the 'Artificial Intelligence Act' should be established to establish a governance system to develop technology and establish a regulatory frame. Based on this awareness of the problem, the Council Laying Down artificial intelligence laws are currently reviewed to examine the differences and legal issues of the artificial intelligence law. By the way artificial intelligence is also used in administration to realize rapid and efficient government. However, we should be wary of the administration's obstruction of the realization of the rule of law by relying on the convenience of artificial intelligence, and ensure the transparency and procedural legitimacy of artificial intelligence. The core of artificial intelligence is to establish ethical norms and to constitute governance. To this end, the direction to proceed and the tasks of the Administrative Law are presented in connection with the Artificial Intelligence Act, General Act on Public Administration, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 이 글은 인공지능 단일법의 필요성에 대한 법적 근거와 행정에서의 인공지능 활용에 따른 행정법학의 과제에 대해 논하고자 한다. 우리나라는 인공지능에 대한 규범적 대응을 위해 법체계를 정비하는 시점에 있다. 우리 정부의 인공지능 정책 방향은 인공지능 기술의 발전과 산업의 진흥을 도모하며 인공지능의 역기능을 최소화하기 위한 규범을 정립하는 것이다. 편익의 최대화와 위험의 최소화의 균형점을 이루기 위해서는 현실에 적합한 규제 프레임워크와 독립적인 거버넌스 구축이 요구된다. 유럽 연합은 인공지능 윤리 규범, 가이드라인과 같은 연성법에서 시작하여 강제력 있는 규제 프레임으로 2021년 4월 인공지능 법안(AI Act)을 제안한 바 있다. 동 법안은 규제의 실효성을 확보하기 위한 독립적인 거버넌스를 구축하고 있으며, 위험 기반 접근(Risk-based approach) 방식에 따라 엄격한 규제부터 유연한 대응까지 규율을 탄력적으로 적용한다는 점에서 우리에게 시사점을 준다. 그렇다면 우리의 인공지능 법제 정비방안은 두 가지로 생각할 수 있다. 첫째, 현행 인공지능 관련 개별법을 개정하여 인공지능을 활용하는 개별 분야에서 추진체계를 두고 규율하는 것 둘째, 인공지능 단일법을 제정하여 인공지능 분야의 일반적인 법률을 재정하는 것이다. 전자와 후자를 비교하는 방법은 먼저 우리 현행 인공지능 관련 법률이 인공지능 기술 개발과 산업 발전을 위한 구체적인 추진체계를 갖추고 있는지, 인공지능 윤리 확보를 실현하기 위한 방안과 규제의 실효성을 확보하기 위한 독립적인 거버넌스를 구성하고 있는지, 정부와 기업 및 학교와 이해관계자를 아우르는 국내외적 교류의 장을 마련하고 있는지 검토할 수 있다. 만일 현행 인공지능 관련 법률에 한계가 있다면, 인공지능 단일법을 마련하여 거버넌스 체계를 구축하여 기술의 발전과 규제 프레임을 확립해야 한다. 이러한 문제의식을 바탕으로 현재 국회에 계류 중인 인공지능 법안을 검토하여 인공지능 단일법의 차별점과 법적 쟁점을 고찰한다. 한편 인공지능 기술은 행정분야에서도 활용되며 신속하고 효율적인 전자정부를 구현하고 있다. 다만 행정이 인공지능이 제공하는 편익에 기대어 법치주의와 적법절차의 실현을 방해하는 것을 경계해야 하며, 인공지능의 투명성과 자동적 처분의 절차적 정당성을 확보할 수 있는 방안을 마련해야 한다. 인공지능 법제의 중심은 윤리 규범의 마련과 거버넌스 구조의 구축에 있으므로 인공지능법과 자동적 처분에 대해 규율하고 있는 행정기본법, 처분의 적법절차 원칙을 위한 행정절차법을 연계하여 인공지능 법제가 나아갈 방향과 행정법학의 과제를 제시한다.

인공지능이 의사결정에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구: 인간과 인공지능의 협업 및 의사결정자의 성격 특성을 중심으로

이정선(JeongSeon Lee),서보밀(Bomil Suh),권영옥(YoungOk Kwon) 한국지능정보시스템학회 2021 지능정보연구 Vol.27 No.3

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a key technology that will change the future the most. It affects the industry as a whole and daily life in various ways. As data availability increases, artificial intelligence finds an optimal solution and infers/predicts through self-learning. Research and investment related to automation that discovers and solves problems on its own are ongoing continuously. Automation of artificial intelligence has benefits such as cost reduction, minimization of human intervention and the difference of human capability. However, there are side effects, such as limiting the artificial intelligence’s autonomy and erroneous results due to algorithmic bias. In the labor market, it raises the fear of job replacement. Prior studies on the utilization of artificial intelligence have shown that individuals do not necessarily use the information (or advice) it provides. Algorithm error is more sensitive than human error; so, people avoid algorithms after seeing errors, which is called “algorithm aversion.” Recently, artificial intelligence has begun to be understood from the perspective of the augmentation of human intelligence. We have started to be interested in Human-AI collaboration rather than AI alone without human. A study of 1500 companies in various industries found that human-AI collaboration outperformed AI alone. In the medicine area, pathologist-deep learning collaboration dropped the pathologist cancer diagnosis error rate by 85%. Leading AI companies, such as IBM and Microsoft, are starting to adopt the direction of AI as augmented intelligence. Human-AI collaboration is emphasized in the decision-making process, because artificial intelligence is superior in analysis ability based on information. Intuition is a unique human capability so that human-AI collaboration can make optimal decisions. In an environment where change is getting faster and uncertainty increases, the need for artificial intelligence in decision-making will increase. In addition, active discussions are expected on approaches that utilize artificial intelligence for rational decision-making. This study investigates the impact of artificial intelligence on decision-making focuses on human-AI collaboration and the interaction between the decision maker personal traits and advisor type. The advisors were classified into three types: human, artificial intelligence, and human-AI collaboration. We investigated perceived usefulness of advice and the utilization of advice in decision making and whether the decision-maker’s personal traits are influencing factors. Three hundred and eleven adult male and female experimenters conducted a task that predicts the age of faces in photos and the results showed that the advisor type does not directly affect the utilization of advice. The decision-maker utilizes it only when they believed advice can improve prediction performance. In the case of human-AI collaboration, decision-makers higher evaluated the perceived usefulness of advice, regardless of the decision makers personal traits and the advice was more actively utilized. If the type of advisor was artificial intelligence alone, decision-makers who scored high in conscientiousness, high in extroversion, or low in neuroticism, high evaluated the perceived usefulness of the advice so they utilized advice actively. This study has academic significance in that it focuses on human-AI collaboration that the recent growing interest in artificial intelligence roles. It has expanded the relevant research area by considering the role of artificial intelligence as an advisor of decision-making and judgment research, and in aspects of practical significance, suggested views that companies should consider in order to enhance AI capability. To improve the effectiveness of AI-based systems, companies not only must introduce high-performance systems, but also need employees who properly understand digital information presented by AI, and can add non-digital

유럽연합(EU) 인공지능규범의 제정과 특징

정남철 유럽헌법학회 2022 유럽헌법연구 Vol.- No.38

On February 19, 2020, the European Commission published the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence. In addition, on April 21, 2021, an Regulation on AI was proposed. The AI regulation proposed by the European Commission can be seen as the first norm on artificial intelligence. However, even before such an AI regulation was proposed, the European Commission presented the EU’s future digital strategy and included such a policy in the White Paper on AI. The AI White Paper is the European Union’s future blueprint for AI. In particular, it is noteworthy that the artificial intelligence white paper emphasizes the ‘ecosystem of trust’. There are concerns about the uncertainty of artificial intelligence and the violation of fundamental rights or threats to democracy that artificial intelligence will cause, and the establishment of an ecosystem of trust is a response to this. The European Union is trying to solve this problem by building a trust ecosystem on the premise of the uncertainty of artificial intelligence. As such, the EU policy on artificial intelligence aims to implement human-centered artificial intelligence. However, the AI white paper does not contain specific and binding regulatory measures. Under these circumstances, the Regulation on Artificial Intelligence proposed by the European Commission on April 21, 2021 has practical meaning. In the AI Regulation, the important framework presented in the AI White Paper is largely maintained, and it can be seen that these contents form a central element of the AI Regulation. If the AI Regulation is enacted, it will be the first regulatory system with direct binding force on member states. The AI norms are the minimum safeguards for innovation and investment in AI. It is noteworthy that the regulatory system based on risk was established. In particular, the requirements and obligations for high-risk AI are impressive, and it is worth referring to establishing a regulatory system for artificial intelligence in Korea. These contents are a reflection of the risk-based AI regulatory policy presented in the previous White Paper on AI. Considering that these regulations are not limited to EU member states and can affect providers or users in third countries, it is necessary to pay attention to the process and trends in the enactment of artificial intelligence commands and to prepare effective countermeasures. 지난 2020년 2월 19일 유럽집행위원회는 인공지능백서(White Paper on Artificial Intelligence)를 발표하였다. 또한 2021년 4월 21일에는 인공지능명령(Regulation on AI)을 제안하였다. 유럽집행위원회가 제안한 인공지능명령은 인공지능에 관한 최초의 규범이라고 볼 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 인공지능명령안이 제안되기 전에도 유럽집행위원회는 유럽연합의 미래 디지털전략을 제시하고 인공지능백서에서 그러한 정책을 포함하고 있다. 인공지능백서는 인공지능에 대한 유럽연합의 미래 청사진이다. 특히 인공지능백서에서 ‘신뢰 생태계’를 강조하고 있다는 점이 주목된다. 인공지능의 불확실성과 인공지능이 초래할 기본권 침해나 민주주의에 대한 위협 등을 우려하고 있으며, 신뢰 생태계의 구축은 이에 대한 대응이다. 유럽연합은 인공지능의 불확실성을 전제로 신뢰 생태계의 구축을 통해 이러한 문제를 해결하려고 노력하고 있다. 이처럼 유럽연합의 인공지능에 대한 정책은 인간중심적 인공지능을 구현하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 그러나 인공지능백서에는 구체적이고 구속력이 있는 규제방안이 포함되어 있지 않다. 이러한 상황에서 2021. 4. 21. 유럽집행위원회가 제안한 ‘인공지능명령’은 실천적 의미가 있다. 인공지능명령안에는 인공지능백서에서 제시된 중요한 골격이 대체로 유지되고 있으며, 이러한 내용은 인공지능명령의 중심적 요소를 이루고 있다고 볼 수 있다. 인공지능명령(안)이 제정되면, 회원국에 대해 직접 구속력을 가진 최초의 규율체계가 될 것이다. 인공지능규범은 인공지능에 대한 혁신과 투자를 위한 최소한의 안전장치이다. 리스크에 기초한 규제체계를 확립한 점이 주목된다. 특히 높은 리스크를 가진 인공지능에 대한 요건과 의무부과는 인상적인데, 인공지능에 대한 규제체계를 확립할 때 참고할 만한 사항이다. 이러한 내용은 종전의 인공지능백서에서 제시한 리스크 기반의 인공지능 규제정책이 그대로 투영된 것이다. 이러한 규제가 유럽연합 회원국에 국한되지 않고 제3국의 제공자나 사용자에게 미칠 수 있다는 점에서 인공지능명령의 제정과정과 동향을 주목하고 이에 효과적인 대응방안을 마련해야 한다.

인공지능 관련 저작권 침해에 관한 시론

전응준 한국경영법률학회 2021 經營法律 Vol.31 No.4

Copyright infringement related to artificial intelligence needs to be addressed in terms of AI learning stage and use stage of AI output. Considering the current degree of development of AI technology, it is thought that the issue of copyright infringement occurring in AI learning stage should be solved more urgently than the issue of copyright infringement occurring in use stage of AI output. Artificial intelligence learning step requires large-scale data input and the use of almost all works as data, making it difficult to solve with conventional fair use law. Accordingly legislative cases in each country, including South Korea, are trying to solve the issue of copyright infringement that may occur in the AI ​​learning stage by placing a new fair use clause or a clause allowing text data mining (TDM). On the other hand, I am of the view that copyright infringement that may occur in the stage of using AI output can be largely resolved by the existing laws of infringement and tort liability. However, even in this area, "depending on the development of technology," there could be marginal cases that are difficult for existing legal principles to solve. Whether an artificial intelligence output has creativity or copyright- ability is a matter that is directly related to whether an artificial intelligence output can infringe on other's copyright. On one side of the view that the copyrightability of artificial intelligence output should be denied, it seems that the current artificial intelligence output can only be used in limited areas such as stock articles, weather articles, and sampling music. Looking at the level of AI(GAN) artwork, chatbot and language translation using NLP, it is necessary to examine in detail whether the AI ​​technology grasps the context from a semantic point of view, and whether creative individuality is expressed accordingly. It is my view that whether pattern recognition, numerical vectorization of characteristics, and probabilistic models adopted by artificial intelligence technology have reached the point where AI can understand human expressions from the viewpoint of semantics not syntactics should be judged legally in the concrete case. An abundance of these discussions will lead to appropriate conclusions on whether to provide legal protection for artificial intelligence output or who to hold legally liable for situations in which artificial intelligence output is believed to infringe on other people's copyrights. This study also discusses the legal nature of open-source license associated with the Edmond de Belamy portrait case. In the AI development process, open source is widely used in the form of open source-based development platforms such as TensorFlow, development tools, and machine learning libraries such as PyTorch. Since AI development requires extensive human and material resources, it is taking an open source community-based development method in which various developers can participate. Regarding the legal treatment of artificial intelligence's achievements and output, it is also necessary to note the legal nature of open-source license applied in the development and distribution process of AI output. 인공지능 관련 저작권 침해는 주요하게 인공지능의 학습단계와 이용단계에서 문제된다. 현재 인공지능 기술의 개발 정도를 고려할 때, 인공지능 학습단계에서 발생할 수 있는 저작권 침해의 문제는 인공지능 이용단계에서 발생할 수 있는 저작권 침해 문제보다 더 시급히 해결되어야 할 것으로 생각된다. 인공지능 학습단계는 대규모의 데이터 입력을 요구하고 데이터로 사용된 저작물을 거의 전부 이용하여야 하기 때문에 종래의 공정이용 법리로 해결하기 어려운 점이 있다. 그에 따라 우리나라를 비롯하여 각국의 입법례는 새로운 공정이용 조항 내지 TDM(Text Data Mining) 허용 조항을 두어 인공지능 학습단계에서 발생할 수 있는 저작권 침해 문제를 해결하려고 하고 있다. 반면, 인공지능 이용단계에서 발생할 수 있는 저작권 침해는 기존의 침해 법리, 불법행위 법리에 의해 상당 부분 해결될 수 있다고 본다. 다만 이 영역에 있어서도 ‘기술의 발전에 따라’ 기존의 법리가 해결하기 어려운 한계적 사안이 발생할 수 있을 것이다. 인공지능 생성물이 창작성 내지 저작물성을 갖추고 있는지 여부는 인공지능 생성물이 타인의 저작권을 침해할 수 있는지 여부와 직접적으로 연결되는 문제이다. 인공지능 생성물의 저작물성을 부정해야 한다고 보는 견해의 일면에는 현행 인공지능 생성물의 수준이 주식 기사, 날씨 기사, 샘플링 음악 등 제한된 영역에서 활용될 수 있는 정도에 불과하다는 점이 고려되었다고 보이는데, 현재 GAN을 이용한 AI 미술품의 수준, NLP를 이용한 챗봇, 언어번역의 수준을 보면 해당 인공지능 기술이 의미론적(semantic) 관점에서 문맥, 맥락을 파악하는지, 그에 따라 창작적 개성이 발현되었는지를 구체적으로 검토해야 할 단계에 진입하였다고 생각된다. 인공지능 기술이 채택하고 있는 패턴인식, 특성의 수치벡터화, 확률적 모형 등이 인간의 표현을 구문론적(syntactic) 차원을 넘어서 의미론적(semantic)차원으로 이해하는지에 관하여 개별 기술 단위로 법률적으로 판단해야 할 시점에 이르렀다고 본다. 이러한 논의를 풍부하게 진행하여야 인공지능 생성물에 대해 법적인 보호를 할 것인지, 인공지능 생성물이 타인의 저작권 등을 침해하는 것으로 여겨지는 상황에 대해 누구에게 법적 책임을 부담시킬 것인지 등에 관한 적절한 결론을 도출할 수 있을 것이다. 본고는 Edmond de Belamy 초상화 사례와 관련되어 있는 오픈소스 라이선스의 법적 성격에 대해서도 기본적인 사항을 논하였다. 인공지능 개발 과정에서 오픈소스는 TensorFlow와 같은 오픈소스 기반 개발플랫폼, 개발도구, PyTorch와 같은 기계학습 라이브러리 등의 형태로 널리 사용되고 있다. 인공지능 개발은 광범위한 인적, 물적 자원이 필요한 영역이므로 이를 위해 다양한 사람이 참여할 수 있는 오픈소스 커뮤니티 기반의 개발 방식을 취하고 있는 것이다. 인공지능의 성과물, 생성물에 대한 법적 취급과 관련하여, 개발 및 배포 과정에서 적용되는 오픈소스 라이선스의 법적 성격에도 유념할 필요가 있다.

인공지능(AI)에 대한 법인격 부여와 법적 책임에 관한 연구 - FinTech 산업에서의 인공지능(AI)의 활용과 법적 책임을 중심으로 -

고인석 ( Ko¸ Inseok ) (사)한국지급결제학회 2021 지급결제학회지 Vol.13 No.2

Social change in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) presents numerous tasks of policy and institutional changes along with changes in the lifestyle and ethical and legal standards of humans living in the modern era. Recently, the rapid change to an intelligent information society based on artificial intelligence (AI), big data (Big Data), and the Internet of Things (IOT) requires not only changes in the social and economic environment, but also changes in the standards of ethical and legal judgments of existing human society. The era of artificial intelligence is an era of “coexistence between humans and artificial intelligence,” and numerous changes in policies and legal systems will lead to tremendous institutional confusion and conflict. Therefore, in order to lead a life as a modern society, it is essential to reorganize a new legal system for the coexistence of humans and artificial intelligence. It can be seen that the issue of granting a legal personality to artificial intelligence depends on the recognition of criminal responsibility and civil responsibility in accordance with the actions of artificial intelligence according to its free will. It can be seen that the issue of granting a legal personality to artificial intelligence is directly related to the possibility of mutual coexistence between artificial intelligence and humans in the artificial intelligence era. In terms of mutual coexistence between humans and artificial intelligence (AI) and continuous development of social communities, the trend of overseas legal research on the improvement of artificial intelligence-related legislation and the process of change in the legal system will be analyzed. It is necessary to derive legal theories and legal reform measures consistent with the development of artificial intelligence technology, such as granting legal personality to artificial intelligence, recognizing legal responsibility, and improving algorithms. This study proposes legal theoretical alternatives to the granting of legal personality and legal responsibility to artificial intelligence for mutual coexistence between humans and artificial intelligence in the era of artificial intelligence, and further suggests active use of artificial intelligence and legal improvement.

인공지능(AI) 창작물의 저작권관계 정립 방향

윤종민 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2023 江原法學 Vol.73 No.-

생성형 인공지능인 챗GPT가 공개된 이후 인공지능을 둘러싼 법률문제에 대한 관심이 크게 증가하고 있다. 저작권분야에 있어서도 인공지능이 창작한 저작물이 일반에게 널리 공개‧유통되고 인공지능으로 인한 저작권 침해 문제가 현실화되면서 인공지능이 창작한 저작물을 어떻게 취급할 것인가에 대한 문제가 다시 쟁점으로 부각되고 있다. 소위 인공지능과 관계된 저작권 논쟁이다. 이 글에서는 인공지능이 창작한 저작물에 대한 권리‧의무의 귀속 등 저작권관계에 관한 그동안의 논의들을 분석‧평가하고, 이를 바탕으로 인공지능 산업의 원활한 발전과 인공지능 창작물의 효과적인 보호 및 활용체계 구축 등 인공지능과 저작권법의 적용관계를 조화롭게 운영해 나갈 수 있는 방안을 모색해 보고자 한다. 그동안 인공지능이 창작한 저작물에 대한 권리관계는 인간 중심의 저작권법원리에 입각한 법해석론적인 견해와 입장으로 인하여 적절히 대응하지 못하였는바 인공지능 창작물의 효과적인 보호와 이용을 촉진하기 위해서는 미래지향적인 저작권제도의 정립을 위한 보다 실천적인 노력이 필요하다. 현재 상황에서 인공지능이 창작한 저작물을 둘러싼 다양한 법률문제에 원활히 대응하기 위해서는 법리적 해석에 의한 접근보다는 입법정책적인 결단을 통해 법과 제도를 정비하는 것이 바람직해 보인다. 즉, 현행 저작권법제도의 운영원리를 최대한 유지하면서 인공지능 창작물을 효과적으로 보호하는 한편 그로 인해 발생되는 각종 법률문제를 원활히 해결하기 위해 저작권법의 발전적이고 보완적인 정비가 필요하다. 인공지능 창작물의 저작권관계를 정립하기 위해서는 인공지능이 창작한 저작물을 저작권법상의 저작물로 포섭하여 법적인 보호대상으로 하고, 해당 저작물에 대한 권리의 귀속 및 배분관계를 적절히 설정하며, 인공지능의 저작물 창작 및 서비스 등과 관련하여 제기되는 저작권 침해 문제를 해결할 수 있는 권리구제 시스템을 갖추어야 한다. Since the release of ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence, interest in legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence has increased significantly. In the field of copyright, as works generated by artificial intelligence are widely disclosed and distributed to the public and copyright infringement problems caused by artificial intelligence become a reality, the problem of how to treat works created by artificial intelligence is emerging as an issue again. This is a copyright controversy related to so-called artificial intelligence. In this article, we analyze and evaluate the current discussions on copyright relations, including the attribution of rights and obligations for works generated by artificial intelligence, and based on this, we would like to find ways to harmoniously operate the relationship between artificial intelligence and copyright law for establishing a system for the development of the artificial intelligence industry and the effective protection and utilization of artificial intelligence generated works. So far, the rights relationship for works generated by artificial intelligence has not been properly responded to due to legal interpretation views and positions based on human oriented copyright legal principles. In order to promote the effective protection and use of artificial intelligence generated works, a more practical efforts are needed to establish copyright system future-oriented. In the current situation, in order to smoothly respond to various legal issues surrounding works generated by artificial intelligence, it seems desirable to reorganize laws and systems through legislative policy decisions rather than an approach based on legal interpretation. In order to effectively protect artificial intelligence generated works and smoothly resolve various legal problems arising therefrom, it is necessary to develop and supplement the copyright law while maintaining the operating principles of the current human oriented copyright law system as much as possible. In order to establish the copyright relationship of artificial intelligence generated works, the works created by artificial intelligence must be included as works under the Copyright Act and be subject to legal protection, the ownership and distribution of rights to the works must be appropriately established, and the rights relief system must be in place to resolve copyright infringement issues raised in relation to the creation and service of works by artificial intelligence.

인공지능 감사의 법적문제 검토

김남욱 한국부패방지법학회 2025 부패방지법연구 Vol.8 No.2

Audit agencies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Brazil conduct audits by artificial intelligence systems to ensure the effectiveness of the return of illegal supply and demand, illegal and unfair measures of duties, and the appropriateness of audits. In Korea, the Framework Act on Artificial Intelligence was enacted in 2025, and Article 20 of the General Act on Public Admiaiatration on Administration stipulates the automatic disposition of artificial intelligence for administrative disposition of binding acts. The Audit Office Act and the Public Audit Act require the establishment and operation of an audit-related information system, but it cannot be concluded as an artificial intelligence information system because it does not define the concept of the information system. Since there are no prestigious regulations on the scope and target of audit activities by audit agencies, standards, confidentiality, registration and certification of audit artificial intelligence systems, etc., securing predictability, transparency, and legality of artificial intelligence audits is not guaranteed. In addition, the concept of artificial intelligence audit should include not only the audit of the artificial intelligence system, but also all audit activities using the artificial intelligence system by auditors or audit agencies. In particular, it is necessary to establish a third-party auditor system as well as internal auditors and external auditors for audit by artificial intelligence systems. The U.S. California bill on artificial intelligence audit was proposed to the California Legislature in February 2025. It establishes an artificial intelligence system on the Internet of state audit and operation agencies to database information on audits, prepare procedures for registration, certification, and verification of artificial intelligence auditors and artificial intelligence systems, as well as disclosure and confidentiality of audit information, the subject of information to be provided to artificial intelligence systems, the explainability of artificial intelligence audits, and the obligation to store audit information for 10 years, but administrative or public institutions do not mandate the introduction of artificial intelligence systems. In this paper, after establishing the concept of artificial intelligence audit, the possibility of expanding artificial intelligence of audit in the intelligent information society and measures to prevent corruption are reviewed. In addition, since the category of artificial intelligence audit is unclear in Korea's artificial intelligence law and audit-related laws, the scope of artificial intelligence audit is clearly identified, and implications for Korea are sought by reviewing and analyzing artificial intelligence audit cases in the United States and the Netherlands in the public administration area. In addition, the legal task of artificial intelligence audit is ⅰ) the enactment of the Artificial Intelligence Audit Act, ⅱ) the acceptability of automatic decision-making of artificial intelligence audit, ⅲ) clarification of the standards and scope of artificial intelligence audit, ⅳ) legal task for the use of artificial intelligence to prevent fraud and illegal supply and demand, and ⅴ) the issue of strengthening new technology capabilities for future auditors and audit institutions are reviewed in five taps and suggested ways to improve them.

인공지능 기반 도시공간 조명디자인 개발 방향에 대한 소고

양정순 한국공간디자인학회 2022 한국공간디자인학회논문집 Vol.17 No.8

(연구배경 및 목적) 최근 도시·건축 부분에서 인공지능은 관리, 설계, 제작 부분에서 주목할 성과들이 나타나고 있다. 조명디자인 분야는 스피커와 연계된 테이블램프나 스마트 가로등 위주로 상용화되고 있어 공간으로 확장성은 극히 제한적이다. 특히인공지능 기반 조명디자인 개발 방향 연구와 지침 등은 거의 없어 엔지니어들이 인공지능이 적용된 조명환경을 어떤 방향으로기술개발 하여야 할지 그 방향성이 모호하다. 인공지능 기술개발은 급진적이나 활용 방향성이 제시되지 않아 공간경험과 공간환경 보다는 요소 위주로 이루어지는 한계가 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 인공지능 기반 조명디자인 개발 방향성에 대한 논의의 필요성을 제기하고 그 방향성을 모색하고자 한다. (연구방법) 먼저 도시 건축공간에 대한 인공지능 관련 선행연구와 개발내용에 대한 조사를 바탕으로 건축공간에서 인공지능 기술개발이 어떻게 이루어지는지 조사 분석하였다. 둘째 인공지능 기반 조명디자인현황에 대해 개별 조명기구 중심의 개발, 운용시스템 그리고 문화콘텐츠로 구분하여 최근 5년간의 신문과 뉴스, 잡지, 조명기술전문사이트 검색을 통해 개발현황에 대한 자료를 수집하였다. 셋째, 수집된 내용을 바탕으로 건축공간에 있어 인공지능 개발의현황 및 선행연구 분석을 통해 인공지능 기반 조명디자인 개발 방향성에 대해 의견을 개진하고자 하였다. (결과) 연구결과로 4 차 산업혁명의 핵심인 사람, 사물, 공간을 초연결, 초지능화 산업구조와 사회시스템으로 변화하고 있으나 그에 대응하는 조명환경에 대한 연구개발이 미진하다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 조명디자인은 지리환경 분석, 법규 적용, 주변 이용자 현황, 동선, 소비 등의 빅데이터 분석을 통해 인공지능으로 빛환경 연출이 확장 가능하다. 더 나아가 공간조명은 정보인지, 생물학적 리듬조절 및 건강, 심미성 강화하는 빛환경의 조건을 찾아 인공지능 적용 가능하다. 이에 인공지능기반 조명디자인은 안전성 강화, 건강증진, 정보전달 및 지역공동체 의식 강화, 유희적 경험과 문화예술적 체험, 자가 학습과정으로서 인공지능 조명을 중심으로 개발 방향성을 제안하고자 한다. (결론) 본 연구에서는 인공지능 기반 조명디자인 방향성에 대한 연구의 중요성에 대한 공감대를 형성하여그 방향성에 대해 함께 모색하고자 하였다. 비록 본 연구가 실험 바탕의 정량적 연구가 아니어서 연구결과에 대해 구체적 수치나데이터는 제시하고 있지 않다. 그러나 AI조명디자인 개발 방향에 대한 사회적 담론 없이 단편적 기술 위주로 개발되는 현재 조명산업 개발 방향에 의구심을 제기하고 그 방향성 수립의 필요성과 발전상을 제안한 데에 본 연구의 의의가 있다. (Background and Purpose) Recently, artificial intelligence (AI) has shown remarkable achievements in the management, design, and production of urban and architectural fields. However, in the lighting design field, AI table lamps linked to speakers or smart street lighting fixtures with multiple functions have been commercialized, which is limited for spatial applications. In particular, there are only few studies and guidelines on the development of AI-based lighting design, making it ambiguous for engineers to choose a direction in developing the lighting environment applied with artificial intelligence. The development of artificial intelligence technology is radical, but there is a limit to the fact that it is focused on elements rather than spatial experience and the spatial environment because the direction of application is not presented. Therefore, this study raises the need for discussion on the direction of AI-based lighting design development. (Method) First, based on previous research, artificial intelligence technology in architectural space was investigated and analyzed. Second, a status survey for lighting design based on artificial intelligence was conducted. This study concerned with lighting fixtures and operation systems, contents based on data newspapers, news, magazines, and lighting technology-specialized websites in the last five years. Third, based on the results of the research, we present opinions on the direction for development of lighting design based on artificial intelligence. (Results) People, things, and space, which are at the core of the fourth industrial revolution, are changing into hyper-connected and super-intelligent industrial structures and social systems, but research and development on lighting environments corresponding to them are insufficient. Lighting design can expand illuminated environments with artificial intelligence through an analysis of the geographic environment, application of laws, and big data analysis of surrounding user status, movement, and consumption patterns. Furthermore, space lighting can be applied to artificial intelligence by determining the conditions of a light environment that enhances information recognition, biological rhythm control, health, and aesthetics. Accordingly, I propose development directions for artificial intelligence lighting as safety enhancement, health promotion, information delivery and awareness enhancement of region, playful experience, cultural and artistic experience, and self-learning processes. (Conclusions) We sought direction by forming a consensus on the importance of research on lighting design based on artificial intelligence. This study is significant in raising doubts about the current direction of development of the lighting industry, which is developed mainly on fragmentary technologies without social discourse on the direction of AI lighting design development, and it suggests its necessity and development.

인공지능(AI)과 지적재산권의 새로운 쟁점 - 저작권법을 중심으로-

차상육 ( Cha Sang-yook ) 법조협회 2017 법조 Vol.66 No.3

There are many topics about the artificial intelligence(AI) in the intellectual property law. First, there is a question whether artificial intelligence generated works can be copyrightable. Because artificial intelligence has no ideas or emotions, even if it is created by autonomous artificial intelligence, there arises a question of whether it can not be protected under the definition of Article 2 of the current copyright law. If so, then there is a issue about whether there are any protection measures for the producer who developed and invested for such autonomously strong artificial intelligence. Second, there is a question whether technology informations generated by artificial intelligence, for example, such like inventions, designs, can be protected under the current patent law. However, Article 33 of the current Patent Act stipulates that a person who has made an invention or a successor must have the right to obtain a patent under this Act. In the end, the person who can get a patent is presuming natural persons or corporations. Since artificial intelligence is not a natural person or a corporation, there arises a issue that even if an invention is created by artificial intelligence autonomously, it is difficult to obtain a patent under the current patent law. In the end, under the current Intellectual Property Law, It is assumed that the artificial intelligence can not be protectable, regardless of whether the autonomous creations are the contents or the technical informations. If so, the challenge is how to bridge the gap between legislative deficiencies and the need for protection. In this article, we will look at several legal issues that can be predicted, especially focused on our copyright law, in conjunction with the unpredictable growth rate of artificial intelligence (AI) which associated Big Data. Unlike traditional works of art or inventions whose works or inventions are protected by the Copyright Act or the Patent Act, none of two available current intellectual property regimes -copyright or patent - protect the autonomously strong artificial intelligence generated works or inventions. So we have a challenge to find new safeguards in the intellectual property law.

인공지능 생성물에 대한 중국에서의 논의 - Feilin Law Firm v. Baidu 사건과 Tencent Dreamwriter 사건을 중심으로 -

홍대운 ( Hong Dae Un ),이주연 ( Lee Ju Yoen ) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 문화미디어엔터테인먼트법연구소 2021 문화.미디어.엔터테인먼트 법 Vol.15 No.1

Although various issues in the intellectual property law brought about by artificial intelligence are being debated around the world, these issues have not yet been resolved and are in a labyrinth. Under these circumstances, in 2019, two rulings dealing with artificial intelligence and copyright issues― Feilin Law Office vs. Baidu decided by Beijing Internet Court and the Tencent Dreamwriter case decided by Nanshan District People’s Court, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province were made ― in China, one of the leading countries in the field of artificial intelligence. The two cases attracted attention around the world, including Korea. In particular, the latter has been known as the first case of acknowledging copyright for creations by artificial intelligence. However, in both cases, courts held that works at issue were copyrighted works on the ground that they were created by humans using artificial intelligence or assisted by artificial intelligence. Nonetheless, in determining the originality of a work, the two courts employed different standards: The Beijing Internet Court considered originality as an independent requirement and judged it according to an objective standard, whereas the Nanshan People’s Court of Shenzhen regarded human creation as a subjective criterion as part of the originality requirement. In this sense, the Beijing Internet Court arguably had favorable attitude toward creations by artificial intelligence. An analysis of the existing and ongoing studies on artificial intelligence and copyright issues reveals that no consensus has been reached on the starting point of the discussion―how to define and distinguish human creations and creations by artificial intelligence in creations involving artificial intelligence. Under these circumstances, the rulings of the above two cases are of great significance and deserve further study in that the two courts resolved disputes over creations involving artificial intelligence based on their own logic. In addition, these two rulings can be regarded as reflecting the Chinese government’s policy to boost the artificial intelligence industry.