Korean Job Discussion Forums

[likemercury]

Hello there. I've seen some posts that sing the praises of the F4 visa. I'm a gyopo and my adoption agency says they'll help me get an F4 (even if I come over with an E2), but I was just wondering if it's really worth it. F4 people on these boards say that they can quit their school any time they want, get a new job at a different school, and teach privates legally, but the big question is, do they have contracts? I plan to sign a teaching contract so that I can have paid airfare and someone to help me when I arrive, but if I do this, will I waive my right to quit, change schools, or teach privates? The best case scenario is that I'll sign with a fair school and I won't want to run screaming to another, but if i'm not that lucky, can I get the heck out there and into another school? Quitting is a violation of contract, I assume. I emailed efl law but they haven't responded. Neither has the adoption agency. Thanks so much!

[sunlit]

get an f-4!! when it comes down to it and you need to break the contract, you don't need to do a visa run to get another job. you'll also be able to get a cell phone on your own ( with some cell companies). it's just better all around.

[homer521]

Yeah.. definitely get an F-4!!! I'm currently trying my ass off to get one.

It's more freedom... able to change hagwons if you're in a bad situation and able to tutor privates legally. I've never heard of the cell phone benefit before.. but an added bonus

Good luck.

[SarcasmKills]

You can also get your own cell phone with an E-1... you just have to pay a deposit which you get back when you cancel..

[CanKorea]

I also recommend the f-4, and I'm on contract at my hagwon, so is another gyopo teacher who works there.

My hagwon helped me to get mine, someone came with me twice to immigration since I didn't have the right documents the first time. If your hagwon shies away from the f-4 idea, don't sign with them.

[likemercury]

Hi, I'm the original poster from way back when, and I wanted to let everyone know that I got my F4 today. I already knew that it was better than an E2, but I posted because I wanted to know what the specific advantages are. I'd heard conflicting stories about bank accounts, breaking contracts, and some other stuff.
Anyway, I still don't know all the things that the F4 allows, but if there's someone who wants info on how to get it, here's what I know now. If you're trying to get one, you already know about all the required documents and basic stuff (bring naturalization certificate, birth certificate, family registry, cash, photo, and passport to a consulate, wait for them to process, then go back and pick it up), but there were some things that were a bit confusing. Here's how I handled them:

1. Some people, including the people I called at the Korean Consulate in Washington, DC, have said the application is all in Korean. When I went there in person, I found that the application is in Korean AND English.

2. The woman who processed my visa said I had to provide a name and phone number of a person in Korea as a contact reference. No one told me this ahead of time, not even when I called the Consulate in advance and asked them what I'd need. I have a feeling that another clerk would not have required it.

3. Holt Adoption Services in Korea said I'd need to do the final step of visa processing in Korea. That is not the case. I did it all in Washington, DC. By the way, if you're an adoptee, your adoption agency will probably (but not definitely) provide your birth certificate and family registry paper. If you agency is Holt, the Seoul post-adoption services department will mail them to you for free, but a Holt office in the USA will charge you a fee. I don't know about other agencies or Holt in other countries.

4. The DC Consulate and several websites said it takes two business days to process the visa. But if you go to the Consulate in DC very late in the afternoon, it might take three. (They don't tell you that).

5. You only have a set amount of time to start to use the visa. I got my visa on Sept 25, and I must enter Korea before December 1, 2003. This means you can't get it too far in advance. BUT (and this is a big "but"), there is a chance that you may not be able to get it after the end of this year. There has been some dispute over the F4, and they may stop issuing it soon. Maybe they've already settled the matter; I haven't checked because I already have one. But anyone who is thinking about getting one in the future needs to find out what happened or what will happen. I wrote to EFL Law about it a couple weeks ago and this is what they told me:


The basic contents of the Overseas Koreans Act include the
following. First, the Act subdivides ethnic Koreans living abroad into two
groups, namely, Korean nationals residing abroad and ethnic Koreans with
foreign nationalities (Article 2). The Act applies with respect to the
entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea and the legal status
therein of Korean nationals residing abroad and ethnic Koreans with
foreign nationalities who have the status of sojourner (Article 3). Ethnic
Koreans with foreign nationalities can stay in Korea with the status of
sojourner for two years, apply for extension of the length of their
sojourn, and enter or depart from Korea without reentry permission from
the State during such period (Article 10(1) - (3)). The Act guarantees
ethnic Koreans with foreign nationalities who have obtained the status of
sojourner the freedom of employment and other economic activities within
the scope that they do not impair social order or economic stability
(Article 10(5)). They are entitled to equal rights with a Korean national
in terms of the acquisition, possession, utilization, and disposal of real
estate in the Republic of Korea except lands within military installations
protection zone (Article 11(1)), and they will be made exempt from forced
performance charges or fines as long as they register real estate
originally registered in the name of a title transferee under actual
titleholder's name or dispose of the real estate through sale within one
year after the Overseas Koreans Act enters into force (Article 11(2)).
Ethnic Koreans with foreign nationalities also have equal rights to Korean
nationals in the use of domestic financial institutions, except in the
case prescribed by Article 18 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act
(Article 12), and those who stay longer than ninety days are entitled to
medical insurance coverage pursuant to acts and subordinate statutes
related to medical insurance (Article 14)""

Summary of the Court Decision

1. Complainants only requested the constitutional review on Article 2[2]
of the Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans.
However, Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, on the
Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans, concretizes Article 2[2]
of the Act, and they regulate the same legal matter as an inseparable
entity. Moreover, provisions of an enforcement decree cannot exist without
provisions of the parental Act. Thus, the Court should include the above
provision of the Enforcement Decree in the subject matter of review, and
Article 3[2] of the Enforcement Decree, the provision decisively excluding
ethnic Koreans who emigrated prior to the establishment of the Republic of
Korea, should be include as a matter of course. Also, since the
complainants filed the instant constitutional complaint for pseudo
legislative omission of the Act which bestowed certain benefits to ethnic
Koreans with foreign nationalities but denied the complainants the
privileges set out in the Act, alleging that such legislation was against
the principle of equality, Article 3[1] of the Enforcement Decree should
also be included in the subject matter of review.

2. Unless the President vetoes a bill and ultimately abrogates it, a bill
retains its identity and becomes an act after its promulgation. Therefore,
a constitutional complaint against such an act.

3. In the case of an "act bestowing certain benefits," an individual who
is excluded as a beneficiary under the act becomes a party and can claim
that his or her right to equality has been violated by such legislation.
If a decision of unconstitutionality or nonconformity to the Constitution
could effectively recover the state of equality for such individuals
discriminated by the Act in relation to individuals benefited by the Act,
then an infringement on the basic rights is recognized.

4. A "foreigner" has a status similar to that of a "national," and
therefore, a foreigner is entitled to the basic rights in principle.

5. The Act on the Immigration and Legal Status of Overseas Koreans provide
a wide range of benefits to ethnic Koreans with foreign nationalities
living abroad. The provisions on review in the instant case distinguish
ethnic Koreans who emigrated before the establishment of the Republic of
Korea from those who emigrated after the establishment of the Republic,
and the Act provides various privileges to those belonging to the latter
group, while denying those in the first group the same privileges.
However, ethnic Koreans belonging to these two categories are identical in
that they are ethnic Koreans with foreign nationalities. Whether an ethnic
Korean emigrated before the establishment of the Republic of Korea or
after is not a critical factor in the matter. However, the Act basically
grants all the requests of those who emigrated to a foreign country after
the establishment of the Korean Government (mostly Korean-Americans,
especially first generation Korean-Americans with US citizenship), while
ethnic Koreans who emigrated before the establishment of the Korean
Government (mainly ethnic Koreans in China and the former Soviet Union)
were not included in the scope of application of the Act, thereby being
denied opportunities they desperately seek - opportunities to enter and
exit and opportunities for employment in Korea. While the State cites
socioeconomic and security reasons for this discriminatory legislation,
such argument cannot be said to have gone through a thorough renew in the
light of the fact that lawmakers originally planned to include ethnic
Koreans who emigrated before the establishment of the Korean Government
but excluded them in the latter process of legislation. The definition
clause in the Act professes adoption of a neutral standard based on the
former nationality of ethnic Koreans. However, the provision in the
Enforcement Decree requires those ethnic Koreans who emigrated before the
establishment of the Korean Government, mostly ethnic Koreans living in
China or the former Soviet Union who were forced to leave their motherland
to join the independence movement, or to avoid military conscription or
forced labor by the Japanese imperialist force, to prove that they were
explicitly recognized as Korean nationals before becoming foreign
citizens. Such requirement which effectively excludes these ethnic Koreans
from receiving benefits under the Act does not have a legitimate basis. In
sum, the statutory provisions in the instant case denying the complainants
and other ethnic Koreans who emigrated before the establishment of the
Republic of Korea the privileges under the Act, are arbitrary legislation
without legitimate justifications, and they are against the principle of
equality stated by Article 11 of the Constitution.

6. Legislators are free to choose a particular means among many options to
restore the state of constitutionality when it is found that a statute is
against the constitutional principle of equality. If the Court renders a
decision of simple unconstitutionality, all ethnic Koreans with foreign
nationalities will be deprived of privileges they enjoy under the Act from
the time of the Court's decision. This would bring a vacuum in law and
much confusion in society, inadmissible to a Government by the rule of
law. Therefore, the Court finds the instant provisions nonconforming to
the Constitution but orders them to remain effective temporarily until the
legislature revises the Act. The legislature has to revise the Act by
December 31, 2003 or the Act becomes invalid.

7. The statutory provisions on review in the instant case are definition
clauses. The decision of unconstitutionality of a definition clause would
accompany the recognition of unconstitutionality of other provisions in
the Act dealing with ethnic Koreans with foreign nationalities, and it
would be the same with lower rules, namely, the Enforcement Decree and the
Enforcement Rule. Therefore, if legislators do not revise the Act in
accordance with the Constitution by December 31, 2003, all related
provisions in the Act, the Enforcement Decree, and the Enforcement
Regulation would become null and void as of January 1, 2004.

Thus, the Court finds the instant statutory provisions nonconforming to
the Constitution but orders them to remain effective temporarily until the
legislature revises the Act. This decision is pursuant to the consensus of
all Justices except Kwon Sung who wrote a separate concurring opinion and
Justices Yoon Young-chul, Han Dae-hyun and Ha Kyung-chull who wrote a
dissenting opinion.


I hope anyone who has read this has found it helpful. I wish I'd known all this before I started, but I had to learn the hard way.

[itaewonguy]

[likemercury]

Why do you get fined if you teach privates? I thought it was legal as long as you paid your 3% income tax and 4% pension. Some specific advantages I was thinking about included medical insurance and bank accounts. You can get them yourself without an an employer to sponsor you, right?

[itaewonguy]

Because the are illegal.

perhaps someone else can shed some more light to this...

[casinoman]

I believe that having an F4 visa basically gives one all the same rights as a Korean national. Obviously one could not be a doctor or lawyer without the appropriate qualifications. Privates are illegal for those who possess an E2 visa although I do believe that a lot of schools "overlook" this and in fact may refer you to their students who want them (I'm assuming the owner will want a cut).