# CALRK-Bench: Evaluating Context-Aware Legal Reasoning in Korean Law

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.26332 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.26332/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 9 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [OpenAI GPT-5 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03267/) (2025)
- [LegalBench-RAG: A Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10343/) (2024)
- [LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12864/) (2025)
- [Studying Large Language Model Behaviors Under Context-Memory Conflicts With Real Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16032/) (2024)
- [Understanding the Interplay between Parametric and Contextual Knowledge for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.08414/) (2024)
- [LexTime: A Benchmark for Temporal Ordering of Legal Events](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04041/) (2025)
- [Do LLMs Truly Understand When a Precedent Is Overruled?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20941/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Legal reasoning requires not only the application of legal rules but also an understanding of the context in which those rules operate. However, existing legal benchmarks primarily evaluate rule application under the assumption of fixed norms, and thus fail to capture situations where legal judgments shift or where multiple norms interact. In this work, we propose CALRK-Bench, a context-aware legal reasoning benchmark based on the legal system in Korean. CALRK-Bench evaluates whether models can identify the temporal validity of legal norms, determine whether sufficient legal information is available for a given case, and understand the reasons behind shifts in legal judgments. The dataset is constructed from legal precedents and legal consultation records, and is validated by legal experts. Experimental results show that even recent large language models consistently exhibit low performance on these three tasks. CALRK-Bench provides a new stress test for evaluating context-aware legal reasoning rather than simple memorization of legal knowledge. Our code is available at https://github.com/jhCOR/CALRKBench.