Inputting content to match complex forms, now AI does it for you.
First, let's take a look at a content certification drafted by inline AI.
Inline AI drafts official content directly onto a Hangul/Word file, as shown below.
No more hassle of finding a form each time or manually entering content to fit the format.
Resolve this with AI that maintains 100% compliance with your uploaded 'form', from drafting a rough copy to completion and finalization.
From basic content certification to payment order applications, complaints, and various applications,
introducing Inline AI that automatically drafts documents in any format.
🔗 Start your free inline AI trial now
Entrust your civil litigation document drafting to Inline AI.
What do lawyers and legal practitioners spend most of their time on?
It's drafting documents to match Supreme Court electronic forms.
Each document, whether it be a payment order application, a complaint, or an application for adjustment, must comply with a set form and essential content, as a single error can affect the outcome of the lawsuit.
'Five payment order applications today... only the facts are different; the rest are nearly identical—do I have to write them from scratch each time?'
If you are contemplating this, you are not only spending a significant amount of time on these repetitive tasks but also losing time that could be better spent on building important legal strategies.
The complexity of Supreme Court electronic forms and practitioners' burdens
1. Different structure for each form
In reality, the civil litigation electronic forms provided by the Supreme Court each have a unique legal structure.
Key features of major forms
Payment order application (Loan): Specialization in loan items such as loan details, repayment dates, interest calculations
Payment order application (Subrogation): Complex legal descriptions such as guarantee relationships and subrogation occurrence
Payment order application (Deposit): Real estate-specialized content such as lease relationships and deposit return obligations
Payment order application (Assignment of claim): Professional legal theories such as assignment of claims relationships, third-party opposition requirements
Complaint: Detailed structure by cause of action, evidence methods, detailed legal basis
Adjustment application: Presenting settlement intentions, dispute backgrounds, and solutions
2. Practitioners' burdens
"Writing a payment order application typically takes at least 3 hours. Inputting according to the format, organizing factual relations, finding legal basis... I end up spending quite a lot of time on document drafting each day."
-- Law Firm in Seocho-dong
Key issues
⏰ Time Consumption: Different patterns for each case require starting anew each time
❌ Risk of Error: Missing essential content threatens dismissal of applications
💸 Opportunity Cost: Lack of time for business due to document drafting
🔄 Repetitive Stress: Continual performance of identical pattern tasks
Continuously performing repetitive tasks increases the likelihood of errors.
While mistakes in a typical company might be adjusted later, errors in legal documents can lead to fatal outcomes.
If any requirement demanded by the Supreme Court's electronic forms is omitted or inaccurate, it provides the opposing party with significant leverage, potentially resulting in non-reversible outcomes like dismissal or loss of a case.
Civil litigation document drafting using Inline AI
General-purpose AIs like ChatGPT or Claude can provide ideas or draft legal documents, but they don't perfectly reflect the exact structure and essential requirements of Supreme Court electronic forms.
Inline AI surpasses these limitations by serving as an AI that makes cumbersome document tasks ten times faster, being very useful for drafting specialized legal documents.
Core differentiators of Inline AI
1. AI document drafting that adheres 100% to forms
✅ Perfect compliance with Supreme Court electronic forms
✅ Automatic check of essential items
✅ Prevention of missing legal requirements
2. Equipped with the strongest existing Claude 4
🧠 Minimized Hallucination: Significantly reduced risk of generating incorrect information
🎯 Accurate reasoning: Precisely analyzes complex legal relationships
📚 Expertise: Complete understanding of legal terminology and logic structure
3. Perfect document drafting based on your data
📎 AI automatically analyzes when uploading documents such as contracts and promissory notes
🔍 Automatically completes documents based on essential information from uploaded materials
💡 Perfect use by 'quoting' and 'remembering,' not just 'referencing'
4. Table functions like Hancom
📊 From transparent borders to fine adjustment of table borders
📋 Accurate drafting of complex adjustment statements, property specifications in table form
Legal forms and documents supported by inline AI:
Supports over 100 types of legal forms perfectly.
📑 Civil General Field
Pleadings, content certification, complaint, response, counter complaint
Payment order application, objection to payment order
Power of attorney and confirmation, document submission order application
Inquiry application, prior reconciliation application, adjustment application
⚖️ Preliminary Injunction/Attachment Field
Preliminary injunction statement, various injunction applications
Provisional disposition application, objection to attachment (provisional disposition) decision
🏛️ Enforcement Related Field
Details of the property to be divided, disclosure of assets application, property inquiry application
Claims seizure and collection/transfer order application
Third-party debtor's statement order application, non-payment debtor register application
📋 Other Specialized Fields
Law: Organization of facts (based on daily life conduct), damage assessment report
Education: Detailed abilities and special matters by subject (for NEIS bulk upload)
Business: Proposal documents, reports, government support project proposals
Academic: Dissertation (official form of Seoul National University Graduate School)
📍 Real Case: Reasons for reducing payment order drafting time to one-sixth
Traditional method (Time required: 60 minutes)
Download form from Legal Aid Corporation or Supreme Court
Manual input of party information (10 minutes)
Description of loan circumstances and facts (20 minutes)
Unpaid fact and interest calculation (15 minutes)
Search and citation of relevant legal articles (10 minutes)
Organize and attach evidence lists (5 minutes)
Using Inline AI (Time required: 10 minutes)
Upload relevant documents such as promissory notes, deposit details (1 minute)
Input key information such as loan date, repayment date, unpaid amount (3 minutes)
AI automatically generates a completed payment order application matching the format (1 minute)
Review and modify detailed content if necessary (5 minutes)
Time-saving effect: 83% reduction & 6 times faster work speed
🔗 Start your free inline AI trial now
We'll guide you through key form utilization instructions.
1. Payment order application, complete it with AI in less than 15 minutes.
Main application cases
Personal money lending (loans between friends, acquaintances)
Business funding loan (funding between individual business owners)
Wage arrears (unpaid severance pay, salary)
Outstanding payment (uncollected payment after goods supply)
Example of drafting a payment order application (Unpaid balance)
User-prepared information
(Include all the materials sent by the client.)
For example:
- Loan date: "March 15, 2024"
- Repayment date: "September 15, 2024"
- Principal: "5,000,000 KRW"
- Agreed interest rate: "12% per annum" (or "none")
- Delay damages: "20% per annum" (or "5% under the Civil Act")
AI automatically drafts every part.
Description of loan circumstances: "The debtor borrowed the amount from the creditor..."
Repayment agreement content: "It was agreed to repay by September 15, 2024..."
Notice of demand facts: "The creditor demanded repayment through content certification on October 1, 2024..."
Interest calculation: Accurate calculation applying compound interest to a daily basis
Legal basis: Automatic citation of the Civil Act Article 750 (compensation for damages), Article 397 (delay damages), etc.
This is an actual payment order application drafted by inline AI.
Looking into the most important cause of action
Cause of Action
1. On February 3, 2021, creditor Sang-Yeon Lee was asked by debtor Joo Hyung-Sik to become the head of a new branch of foreign nationals’ admission consulting under the Aruri Consulting Group. On February 5, 2021, they agreed on the name 'Abroad Bridge' for the academy, and orally agreed on February 15, 2021, to share profits equally but deduct teacher costs from the head's share. This agreement was not merely an employment relationship but essentially a partnership, as can be verified through KakaoTalk conversation regarding profit sharing and actual account deposit details.
2. From February to May 2021, the creditor led the following key tasks as the head of Abroad Bridge:
a. The creditor led the collection of successful interviewees, laying the groundwork for the business.
They posted promotional posts in major university communities and directly contacted former overseas high school colleagues to collect successful interviews. While rewards were paid by the debtor, all subject negotiations and proceedings were handled by the creditor.
b. The creditor single-handedly handled marketing activities and recruitment.
From February to May 2021, they independently planned and created all blog posts and SNS content for Abroad Bridge, using successful interview content for promotional material.
c. The creditor represented all essential recruitment and sales processes, such as presentations and in-depth consultations. They personally created and conducted presentation PPTs and documents, inducing customers to purchase regular consulting programs through in-depth consultations.
d. The creditor, with Vice President Song Joo-won, developed a special admission consulting program for foreign nationals.
e. The creditor actively led discussions on business direction with the debtor.
They discussed business direction and marketing strategies from an equal standpoint with the debtor, as verified through meeting records and KakaoTalk content.
3. In early April 2021, the creditor considered it unreasonable to deduct teacher costs from the director and vice director’s share while sharing profits equally and requested structural changes three times—twice individually and once with Vice President Song Joo-won. As the debtor did not accept this, it was agreed on May 1, 2021, to finish only the programs in progress and leave the academy. However, as of July 30, 2021, the debtor is in arrears with the 7,000,000 KRW in wages and remaining profits payable to the creditor.
4. When the creditor co-founded Berista Consulting with Vice President Song Joo-won in May 2021, the debtor indicated on July 28, 2021, they would sue for violations of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and non-compete clauses. However, successful interview materials were not protected as secret and were already available on the Abroad Bridge blog in edited form. Additionally, the creditor never agreed to contract terms containing a non-compete clause, as detailed content sent via KakaoTalk on March 25, 2021, was said to be under legal review without completion.
5. In this situation, the debtor hasn't paid wages or profits to the creditor, prompting the creditor to file this application to receive unpaid wages and profits totaling 7,000,000 KRW, along with delay damages and expedited procedure costs.
2. General lawsuit documents can also be easily drafted as shown below.
Complaint Draft Example
User-prepared information
(Similarly, include all materials sent by the client.)
(If you specify detailed directions on how to draft a complaint, the result will meet your expectations.)
- Dispute Overview: "Breach of contract, resulting in a compensation claim"
- Contract Contents: "Upload service contract PDF file"
- Breach Details: "Failure to meet delivery by May 15, 2024"
- Damage Details: "Direct damage 5 million KRW + indirect damage 2 million KRW"
- Demands: "Refund of contract fee + Compensation for damages + Penalty"
Here is a complaint drafted by inline AI.
Examining the core cause of action
Cause of Action
1. The relationship between the parties
On February 3, 2021, the plaintiff received a proposal from the defendant, representing Aruri Consulting Group, to become the principal of a new branch dedicated to foreign nationals’ admission consulting named 'Abroad Bridge'. The plaintiff and defendant jointly selected the name 'Abroad Bridge' for the academy on February 5, 2021, and initially planned joint application for trademark rights on February 10, at the defendant's suggestion, applied under the defendant's name (Exhibit #1).
The plaintiff and defendant orally agreed on February 15, 2021, to share profits equally but deduct teacher costs from the principal's share. This was not simply an employment agreement but a substantial partnership, as evidence through KakaoTalk conversations regarding profit sharing and actual account deposit records (Exhibit #2).
2. Execution of the plaintiff's duties
From February to May 2021, the plaintiff took the lead in the following key tasks as principal of Abroad Bridge:
a. The plaintiff actively collected successful interviewees, laying the groundwork for the business. The plaintiff posted promotional material in major university communities and reached out to overseas school alumni to gather successful interviews (Exhibit #3). While the defendant paid rewards, the plaintiff handled all subject negotiations and proceedings. Utilizing their background as an overseas school alumnus, the plaintiff secured many interviewees through their network.
b. The plaintiff individually handled marketing activities and recruitment. From February to May 2021, the plaintiff independently planned and created all blog posts and SNS content for Abroad Bridge and utilized successful interview content for marketing materials (Exhibit #4).
c. The plaintiff managed all essential recruitment and sales procedures such as presentations and in-depth consultations. The plaintiff personally created and delivered presentation PPTs and documents and induced customers to purchase regular consulting programs through in-depth consultations.
d. The plaintiff, along with Vice Director Song Joo-won, developed a special admission consulting program for foreign nationals (Exhibit #5).
e. The plaintiff actively guided business direction discussions with the defendant. The plaintiff discussed business directions and marketing strategies from an equal perspective with the defendant, based on meeting records and KakaoTalk content (Exhibit #6).
3. Request for change in profit structure and resignation
The plaintiff considered it unreasonable to deduct teacher wages from the principal and vice principal’s share while sharing profits equally and requested a revision of the profit structure privately on April 5, 2021, three times in total, receiving no acceptance from the defendant. The plaintiff and Song Joo-won jointly agreed on May 1, 2021, to finish ongoing programs and leave the academy.
4. Establishment of Berista Consulting and defendant's unjust actions
The plaintiff co-founded Berista Consulting with Vice Director Song Joo-won in May 2021, becoming a joint representative and utilizing existing presentation material and collected successful interview content for marketing via new accounts on SNS and blogs.
On learning of this, the defendant indicated on July 28, 2021, intent to sue for breach of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and non-compete clauses based on a contract neither finalized nor legally binding (Exhibit #7). Concurrently, wages and remaining profits due in July were withheld from the plaintiff, Vice Director Song, and three other consultants (Exhibit #8).
5. Rebuttal to defendant's groundless claims
a. The defendant's claim of violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is groundless.
Successful interview content was not managed as secret and was already publicly available in edited form on the Abroad Bridge blog (Exhibit #9). For content to be deemed secret, protective measures like password protection or copy prevention must be involved, but no such measures were applied, and the defendant, plaintiff, and Vice Director Song freely shared it with other consultants as needed (Exhibit #10).
b. The assertion of non-compete clause violation is also unfounded.
On March 25, 2021, the plaintiff was sent contract details containing a non-compete clause via KakaoTalk from the defendant, stating the contract was under legal review and not finalized (Exhibit #11). The plaintiff never explicitly agreed to this, nor was the contract subsequently finalized. Therefore, the contract holds no legal effect.
6. Defendant’s content certification and unjust demands
On August 23, 2021, the defendant sent content certification to the plaintiff, claiming a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and demanding 50,000,000 KRW as damages. The defendant also demanded all used successful interview materials obtained from Abroad Bridge be ceased, disposed of, and 3,000,000 KRW be paid for each breach (Exhibit #12).
As explained earlier, successful interview content does not qualify as trade secret, and the plaintiff had made a considerable effort in securing such content. Additionally, the plaintiff and defendant shared a substantial partnership relationship, thus granting the plaintiff the right to utilize said resources.
7. Conclusion
For reasons explained above, the plaintiff seeks payment of unpaid profits totaling 13,000,000 KRW, plus 15% per annum in delay damages from the defendant.
3. Special procedure documents unknown to ChatGPT, made possible with inline AI.
Details of property to be divided: Inline AI automatically organizes the details of property to be divided used in divorce procedures.
Property inquiry application: Draft{
