Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
MSIT Notice 2026-50 sets out who decides that a product or service actually uses AI, on what criteria, and how fast
Korea now has an official answer to the question of whether a product counts as AI. The answer is issued by an industry association, on a technical review by TTA, and it starts with a procurement catalogue number.
Bottom line: Binding. This is an enacted administrative rule (gosi) of the Ministry of Science and ICT, effective 21 July 2026. It is procedural: it does not itself impose AI safety duties, it governs how a confirmation is applied for, decided and revoked.
Who this affects: Product managers, bid and proposal staff, and in house counsel at Korean vendors seeking to have a product or service confirmed as using AI, plus public buyers who rely on that confirmation.
Issue date: MSIT Notice No. 2026-50, promulgated and effective 21 July 2026. The addendum states the rule takes effect on 21 July 2026. No sunset or review date is given.
What changed: There was no standing procedure before. The notice designates the confirming body and the reviewing body, fixes seven technical criteria, sets a 15 day decision deadline extendable once by 30 days, and provides for revocation.
Analysis: Article 4(2) requires the applicant to obtain a goods list number from the Public Procurement Service catalogue system before applying. Confirmation is therefore wired into public procurement from the first step, whatever else it is used for.
Primary sources: MSIT Notice No. 2026-50 (Korean law portal)
- Instrument (EN)
- Notice on the Operation of the AI Product and Service Confirmation Procedure
- Authority
- Ministry of Science and ICT, AI Safety and Trust Policy Division (044-202-6292)
- Jurisdiction
- South Korea
- Status
- Enacted (jejeong), in force
- Bindingness
- Binding administrative rule under the AI Framework Act article 16(3) and Enforcement Decree article 15(4)(1)
- Issue date / next deadline
- 21 July 2026, effective the same day. Decisions due within 15 days of a complete application, extendable once by up to 30 days.
- Confirming body
- Korea Association for AI Industry Promotion, designated under article 26(1) of the AI Framework Act
- Reviewing body
- Telecommunications Technology Association, under article 34 of the Framework Act on Broadcasting and Communications Development
- Primary source
- https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/admRulInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000283290
The two bodies, and why the split matters
Article 2 sets up a division of labour. The confirming body is the Korea Association for AI Industry Promotion, named by reference to article 26(1) of the AI Framework Act. The reviewing body, which performs the technical assessment of whether AI or AI technology was actually used, is the Telecommunications Technology Association, named by reference to article 34 of the Framework Act on Broadcasting and Communications Development.
So the technical judgement and the administrative decision sit with different organisations. Under article 5(1) the head of the confirming body must refer a received application to the reviewing body without delay, and under article 5(2) the reviewing body reports its result back without delay.
The notice also defines the object being tested. An AI processing computation system means an algorithm or program designed to learn from data or infer from it so as to produce outputs such as prediction, classification or generation.
Applying, and the procurement precondition
Article 4(1) lists five attachments: the application form, a consent to inspection and use, a consent to collection, use and third party provision of personal data, a structural diagram of the product or service reflecting the placement of the AI and the data flow, and a specification of the AI processing computation system and its functions including a summary of algorithms, data characteristics and roles. Applications may be filed through the confirming body's online system.
Article 4(2) is the clause worth flagging to a bid team. Before applying, the applicant must have requested listing in the Public Procurement Service goods list information system and been assigned a goods list number, meaning a detailed item name number and an identification number.
If documents are incomplete, article 4(4) lets the confirming body set a supplementation period of up to 30 days. Article 4(5) allows a further request for supplementation or outright return of the application if gaps remain.
The seven criteria
Article 5(2) is the substance. The reviewing body checks that an AI processing computation system is applied to the product or service; that the applied system has the characteristics of AI such as learning or inference; that data entered into the product passes through that system and produces meaningful output such as prediction or generation; that the location of the AI is clear on the structural diagram and that it operates in combination with the product's own drive mechanism; that the system is demonstrably used for the function, convenience, accessibility or efficiency of the product; that the main functions using the system operate normally; and, where an external AI processing computation system is linked, that call logs or an API key can be verified.
That last criterion is the practical one for anyone shipping a wrapper around a third party model. Verifiability of the call, not a claim in the brochure, is what the reviewing body is told to look for.
Clocks, certificates and revocation
Article 6(2) gives the confirming body 15 days from receipt to decide, with one extension of up to 30 days where complexity warrants it, and requires notice of the reason and length of any extension. Where documents are missing or unclear, article 6(3) allows a supplementation period of up to 30 days and then requires a decision within 15 days of the supplementation. Article 6(4) permits a decision on the documents as filed if supplementation does not arrive in time.
A positive decision produces a certificate on form 4, which the confirming body must retain electronically and reissue on request. Article 7(3) allows one certificate to cover several models where the AI applied is the same and only external appearance differs.
Article 8 requires revocation where confirmation was obtained by false or improper means, and requires the confirming body to hear the applicant first. Article 9 imposes confidentiality on officers and staff of both bodies as to secrets and trade secrets learned in the work.
What we did not verify
We opened the full text of MSIT Notice No. 2026-50 on the Korean national law information portal, including all nine articles and the addendum fixing 21 July 2026 as the effective date.
We did not open the four annexed forms, the AI Framework Act itself, or its Enforcement Decree, so we describe article 16(3) and Enforcement Decree article 15(4)(1) only as the notice cites them. We did not open the Public Procurement Service catalogue system.
We do not claim that confirmation is mandatory to sell AI in Korea, that it is required to win a public contract, or that it carries any benefit beyond the certificate. The notice states none of that. English names of the two designated bodies are our rendering of the Korean names, not official translations.
If you sell into Korea and you want a product recorded as AI, the sequence is fixed: get a goods list number from the procurement catalogue first, then file five documents with the association, then survive a TTA technical review against seven criteria. Build the structural diagram and the call log evidence before you apply, because criteria four and seven are documentation tests. A false confirmation is revocable, with a hearing.
Source File
https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/admRulInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000283290
Open the notice on law.go.kr and confirm the header line reading MSIT Notice No. 2026-50, 21 July 2026, enacted, then read article 4(2) on the goods list number, article 5(2) for the seven criteria and article 6(2) for the 15 day clock.
제품 또는 서비스에 인공지능처리 연산체계가 적용되어 있을 것 (the product or service shall have an AI processing computation system applied) · MSIT Notice No. 2026-50, article 5(2)1, 21 July 2026
FAQ
Is the confirmation compulsory?
The notice does not say so. It sets out how a confirmation is obtained by an applicant who wants one, and article 3 lets the confirming body return applications that fall outside scope.
Who actually judges whether a product uses AI?
The technical review is performed by the Telecommunications Technology Association. The decision is made by the Korea Association for AI Industry Promotion, reflecting that review.
How long does a decision take?
Fifteen days from receipt under article 6(2), extendable once by up to 30 days for complexity, with notice of the reason and length. A supplementation request restarts a 15 day clock from the date of supplementation.
Can one certificate cover several product models?
Yes. Article 7(3) allows models to be listed together on one certificate where the AI applied is the same and the difference is only in external form or appearance.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.