[Foreign Employment Contracts and the E-7 Visa ⑬] E-7 Supplementary Documents: Should HR Rewrite the Contract?
BySangjin Ji, Administrative Attorney3 years of embassy visa practiceLinkedIn
![[Foreign Employment Contracts and the E-7 Visa ⑬] E-7 Supplementary Documents: Should HR Rewrite the Contract? cover](https://24twwbxsszxyfawd.public.blob.vercel-storage.com/blog/card_01-cZt2oEtN91M3n1UQVndevzKuMXSdyY.png)
Your company has submitted an E-7 visa application for a foreign employee. Then Korean immigration requests additional documents.
The HR manager opens the employment contract again.
Was the salary entered incorrectly? Is the job description too vague? Would revising the contract and submitting it again resolve the issue?
Not necessarily. Receiving a request for additional documents does not automatically mean the employment contract needs to be rewritten.
If immigration is questioning the salary or contract duration, the company should compare the documents with the employment terms actually agreed upon.
If the request concerns the employee's duties, qualifications, or the employer's eligibility, different supporting documents may be more relevant.
Consider a trading company preparing to hire a foreign employee for overseas sales.
The employment contract describes the position as "overseas sales and account management." However, the company's hiring justification emphasizes "customer support and interpretation."
If immigration requests a clearer explanation of the employee's actual responsibilities, HR might be tempted to make the job title sound more specialized.
But an impressive title does not establish whether the employee's actual duties match the E-7 occupation applied for.
The existing employment contract may already be accurate. In that case, a detailed job description and evidence of the company's business activities may be more useful than rewriting the contract.
The first task is to understand exactly what immigration is asking the company to establish.
What Does an E-7 Request for Additional Documents Mean?
A request for additional documents means immigration needs further information or evidence before completing its examination of the application.
It is not an approval.
It is also not a refusal.
The application remains under review, and the notice identifies matters that require further explanation or supporting evidence.
Under Article 22(1) of Korea's Act on the Handling of Civil Petitions (「민원 처리에 관한 법률」), an administrative agency may request supplementation of an application within a reasonable period.
Article 22(2) also addresses an applicant's ability to supplement, amend, or withdraw an application before processing is completed, subject to special statutory provisions and exceptions arising from the nature of the petition.
However, Article 3 of the Act provides that special provisions under other laws take precedence.
This distinction matters for E-7 applications.
An application to change one's status of stay within Korea may be subject to different procedures from an application involving a certificate for visa issuance or a visa application made overseas.
The applicable immigration procedures must therefore be identified before relying on the general rules governing civil petitions.
Can the Supplementation Deadline Be Extended?
Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Handling of Civil Petitions addresses requests to extend a supplementation period when the applicant cannot provide the required materials in time.
Under that general procedure, the applicant states the additional time required, and requests for extension are limited to two.
This does not mean every E-7 applicant automatically receives two extensions.
Immigration-specific provisions and the individual supplementation notice must be considered.
Article 24(3) of the same Enforcement Decree also provides for additional supplementation requests in certain circumstances, while Article 25(1) addresses the return of civil petition documents when required supplementation is not provided within the applicable period.
These are general civil-petition rules. Their application to an individual E-7 case depends on the relevant application procedure.
For the employer, the practical starting point is the notice itself.
Read it carefully and identify:
- What information or supporting documents does immigration require?
- What is the submission deadline?
- Which office must receive the response, and how must it be submitted?
If the company needs documents from an overseas university or former employer, it should establish how long obtaining those records may take.
When the deadline cannot be met, the responsible immigration office should be contacted before the deadline to determine whether an extension is available.
An inquiry or extension request does not automatically suspend or extend the original deadline.
Source: National Law Information Center, Act on the Handling of Civil Petitions, Articles 3 and 22; Enforcement Decree, Articles 24 and 25 (version effective May 6, 2026).
Why Rewriting the Employment Contract May Not Resolve the Problem
An employment contract records the terms agreed upon by the employer and employee.
Salary, contract duration, job responsibilities, and workplace are among the matters it may address.
Because these terms appear together in one document, the employment contract is often the first document HR examines when immigration requests supplementation.
But the contract is only one part of an E-7 application.
Different documents explain different aspects of the proposed employment relationship.
Employment contract
The contract records the conditions under which the employer and foreign employee have agreed to work together.
Job description
The job description explains what the employee will actually do in the position.
Hiring justification
This document explains why the company wishes to hire the foreign employee for the particular role.
Academic and employment records
These documents establish the applicant's education, professional experience, and other relevant qualifications.
The specific documents required may vary depending on the E-7 occupation and application procedure.
For example, if the employment contract omits or incorrectly records an agreed salary, the contract itself may require correction.
If immigration wants a clearer explanation of overseas sales responsibilities, the job description and supporting business records may be more relevant.
If evidence of professional experience is missing, the employee may need to obtain the appropriate employment certificates.
And if an underlying eligibility requirement is not satisfied, changing the wording of the employment contract cannot make that requirement disappear.
The question is therefore not simply, "Which document should we edit?"
It is, "What fact is immigration asking us to establish, and which document can establish it?"
When Immigration Questions the Employee's Actual Job Duties
Return to the trading company described earlier.
The employment contract identifies overseas sales as the employee's responsibility.
The hiring justification, however, places greater emphasis on customer service and interpretation.
Suppose immigration requests a more detailed explanation of the employee's intended duties.
Changing the employee's title to "Global Strategy Manager" would not, by itself, resolve the discrepancy.
The employer needs to explain what the employee will actually do.
If the main responsibilities involve identifying overseas customers and negotiating export contracts, the company should describe those activities accurately.
An existing organizational chart, job description, or business record may help establish the employee's role.
If interpretation is also part of the position, the company should describe the actual nature and proportion of that work.
Now consider a different situation.
Suppose the employee will mainly provide customer service to domestic clients, even though the employment contract describes the position as overseas sales.
In that case, the employer should reconsider the actual agreed responsibilities and whether the E-7 occupation selected for the application is appropriate.
A new job title does not change the work the employee will perform.
Article 23 and Attached Table 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree under the Immigration Act (「출입국관리법」) concern employment activities permitted under the relevant status of stay.
For an E-7 application, the actual duties must be considered in relation to the occupation and activities covered by the requested status.
The distinction is important.
If the contract accurately reflects the intended work but the explanation is insufficient, additional evidence may address the concern.
If the actual duties do not match the occupation applied for, the issue goes beyond how the documents are worded.
Source: National Law Information Center, Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Act, Article 23 and Attached Table 1-2.
When Salary or Contract Duration Is the Issue
Suppose the employment contract states an annual salary of KRW 32,000,000.
The hiring justification, however, states KRW 30,000,000.
Which figure should the employer use when responding to immigration?
The answer depends on the salary actually agreed upon by the employer and employee.
If the employment contract correctly records KRW 32,000,000 and the other document contains an outdated figure, correcting that document may be the appropriate response.
If the contract contains an error, the parties should establish their actual agreement before correcting the relevant document.
However, matching the figures across the documents does not necessarily resolve the underlying question.
The agreed salary itself may fall below the wage requirement applicable to the E-7 occupation.
The 2026 E-7 Salary Requirements
On December 29, 2025, the Korean Ministry of Justice announced Notice No. 2025-406 setting wage requirements for Specific Activities (E-7) status of stay in 2026.
The general annual salary thresholds are:
- E-7-1, professional workers: KRW 31,120,000 or more
- E-7-2, semi-professional workers: KRW 25,890,000 or more
- E-7-3, general skilled workers: KRW 25,890,000 or more
- E-7-4, skilled workers: KRW 26,000,000 or more
These standards apply from February 1 through December 31, 2026.
However, occupations for which the Minister of Justice has established separate wage requirements are subject to those specific standards.
Consider an E-7-1 application to which the general wage requirement applies.
If the annual salary actually agreed upon is KRW 30,000,000, it falls below the 2026 general E-7-1 threshold of KRW 31,120,000.
Simply replacing the figure in the hiring justification with KRW 32,000,000 would not solve the underlying problem.
The employer must consider the salary it will actually pay and the requirement applicable to the occupation.
Conversely, if the parties genuinely agreed to KRW 32,000,000 and only the hiring justification incorrectly states KRW 30,000,000, the discrepancy should be corrected.
Even then, meeting the general salary threshold does not guarantee E-7 approval.
The occupation, the employee's qualifications, the employer's eligibility, and other applicable conditions remain relevant.
Salary Is More Than a Number on the Contract
The salary stated in an employment contract must reflect the actual employment conditions.
A bonus or allowance that the employer does not intend to pay should not be presented as guaranteed compensation.
Where the composition or payment of wages changes, the parties must also consider the requirements for specifying employment conditions under Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act (「근로기준법」), together with any relevant contract changes.
Contract duration requires similar attention.
If the employment contract and visa application show different end dates, HR should establish which document contains the error.
If the parties intend to change the agreed contract period, they should consider whether mutual agreement and any related procedures are required.
Changing a date to make the application appear more favorable is not the same as correcting an error.
In particular, documents should not misrepresent when an agreement was actually concluded.
Source: Ministry of Justice Notice No. 2025-406, "2026 Wage Requirements for Specific Activities (E-7) Status of Stay" (December 29, 2025); National Law Information Center, Labor Standards Act, Article 17.
When the Request Concerns Academic Qualifications or Experience
A request for evidence of education or professional experience is different from a request to correct an employment contract.
Here, the central issue is whether the applicant actually possesses the qualifications required for the relevant E-7 occupation.
Consider a company that states in its hiring justification that the employee has five years of relevant professional experience.
Suppose the submitted employment certificate does not establish that period.
The five years in this example represent the company's stated claim. They are not a universal legal experience requirement applicable to every E-7 occupation.
Adding more years to the hiring justification does not establish experience that the supporting records cannot demonstrate.
Nor does describing the employee as a "specialist" create a qualification that the employee does not possess.
Instead, the company should examine what the existing records actually establish.
Relevant details may include:
- The period of employment shown on each certificate
- The duties performed during that employment
- The organization issuing the certificate
- Whether employment periods overlap
- How the experience relates to the E-7 occupation applied for
Academic records may also need to be compared with the application.
The institution's name, field of study, graduation date, and degree-award date should correspond to the facts stated in the submitted documents.
Documents issued overseas may require translation, authentication, or verification of their authenticity, depending on the application procedure and the type and country of issuance.
The same authentication method should not be assumed to apply automatically to every foreign employment certificate.
A lack of evidence is not the same as a lack of qualifications.
If the applicant genuinely possesses the necessary experience but has not provided sufficient proof, additional supporting documents may address the problem.
If the applicant does not satisfy the qualification requirements applicable to the occupation, rewriting the employment contract will not change that fact.
When Immigration Requests More Information About the Employer
Sometimes the issue is not the foreign employee's qualifications.
Immigration may need further information about the employing company.
The request could concern the company's business activities, its need for the proposed foreign employee, its business records, or an employer-related requirement applicable to the E-7 occupation.
Consider a company whose business registration identifies wholesale and retail operations.
Its hiring justification, however, describes the company as a technology developer recruiting a research specialist.
Does the difference automatically make the E-7 application ineligible?
Not necessarily.
A difference in business descriptions or industry codes does not, by itself, establish whether the application must be refused.
The company may need to explain what business it actually conducts and why the proposed employee's responsibilities fit those activities.
The relevant evidence may include existing company information, business records, transaction documents, or materials showing projects connected to the proposed position.
The evidence should correspond to the company's actual operations.
If a business activity has not yet commenced, the company should distinguish its current situation from its future plans.
A planned project should not be presented as an established business record.
Certain E-7 occupations may also involve additional employer eligibility requirements or employment restrictions.
The same workforce ratio or company-size condition cannot be assumed to apply to every E-7 occupation.
Where immigration questions employer eligibility, HR should identify the requirements that actually apply to the selected occupation and prepare documents that address those requirements.
Emphasizing the employee's professional title in the employment contract does not establish that the employer satisfies every applicable condition.
How Should HR Prepare a Response to the Immigration Notice?
Return once more to the trading company.
Immigration has requested a clearer explanation of the employee's actual responsibilities and supporting evidence.
The existing employment contract refers to overseas sales and account management.
The hiring justification emphasizes customer support and interpretation.
Before rewriting either document, the HR manager needs to determine what the employee will actually do.
If overseas client development and export negotiations are the main responsibilities, those activities can be described in a more detailed job description.
Existing business documents that support the explanation may also be prepared.
If domestic customer service is the main responsibility, the employer must reconsider whether the agreed duties correspond to the E-7 occupation applied for.
The two situations require different responses.
A practical way to organize the materials is to compare four matters in order:
-
What the immigration notice specifically asks the applicant to explain or establish.
-
What the previously submitted employment contract, application, and hiring justification actually state.
-
What the employer and employee have genuinely agreed upon, including the intended duties and employment conditions.
-
Which corrections or additional records can establish the relevant facts.
The objective is not to repeat identical sentences across every document.
Each document has a different purpose.
The employment contract records the agreed working conditions.
The hiring justification explains the reason for recruitment.
The job description describes the proposed work in practical terms.
Although their purposes differ, the documents should all be consistent with the same underlying facts.
If the employment contract requires correction, the employer should use the actual agreement and relevant dates as the basis.
Where necessary, the response should also explain why the corrected information differs from the original submission.
Inventing business transactions or backdating a contract does not constitute legitimate supplementation.
Why the Submission Deadline and Application Procedure Matter
When immigration requests additional documents, rewriting the entire application can seem like the fastest solution.
But doing so may change information that immigration did not ask the applicant to revise.
Salary and contract duration are agreed employment conditions. They should not be altered arbitrarily simply because supplementary materials have been requested.
The company should first identify the applicant, application reference number, application type, requested documents, submission method, and deadline.
It should also determine who can obtain the necessary evidence.
Some documents may already be held by the employer.
Others may belong to the employee or need to be obtained from an overseas university or former employer.
The time required to obtain those documents may affect the company's response.
If the deadline cannot be met, the responsible immigration office should be contacted before it expires to determine whether an extension is available.
The general civil-petition rules on extensions do not automatically apply in the same way to every E-7 application.
Nor does requesting an extension automatically change the original submission deadline.
Another important distinction is whether the company is merely providing evidence of existing facts or seeking to make a substantive change to the application.
Providing additional proof of previously agreed duties is different from changing the E-7 occupation applied for or establishing new employment terms.
Although the general civil-petition legislation addresses amendments before an application is concluded, it does not mean every E-7 application can be changed without restriction.
The applicable immigration procedure and the responsible office's requirements must be considered.
Failure to provide required supplementary documents may also lead to the return of the application or other unfavorable procedural consequences, depending on the applicable rules.
Can the Employee Start Working While the E-7 Application Is Under Review?
A pending E-7 application and permission to undertake E-7 employment activities are separate questions.
Suppose a foreign national currently holds D-2 student status or D-10 job-seeking status in Korea and has applied to change to E-7.
Submitting additional documents does not, by itself, authorize the applicant to begin the employment activities covered by E-7.
Under Article 24 of the Immigration Act, a person who wishes to undertake activities corresponding to a different status of stay must, as a general rule, obtain permission to change status beforehand.
Whether any activity is already permitted under the person's existing status, or separately authorized, must be assessed under the applicable rules.
Even if the employer has scheduled a starting date, the company should establish when the employee is legally permitted to begin the intended work.
The fact that immigration has requested supplementary documents does not itself provide that permission.
Source: National Law Information Center, Immigration Act, Article 24 (Permission to Change Status of Stay).
What Can the Company Check Itself, and What Requires Individual Review?
After receiving an E-7 supplementation notice, the company can begin with the documents it already possesses.
First, read the notice and identify the requested information, submission deadline, and submission method.
Then compare the existing employment contract, hiring justification, and application.
If the request concerns salary, examine the amount actually agreed upon and the figures recorded in each document.
If it concerns job responsibilities, compare the contract with the hiring justification and the work the employee is expected to perform.
If it concerns professional experience, compare the periods and duties described in the application with the available employment records.
The company can also identify which documents it already holds and which must be obtained from the employee or an overseas institution.
These steps help clarify what information is missing.
However, some questions require an individual assessment.
These may include whether the proposed activities fall within the selected E-7 occupation, whether a separate wage or employer requirement applies, and whether the original application conditions need to be changed.
There is a meaningful difference between an application that lacks sufficient evidence and one whose underlying eligibility requirements have not been satisfied.
Likewise, preparing or submitting supplementary documents may involve work beyond an initial assessment. Any such service must be considered separately, within the scope of activities an Administrative Attorney is legally permitted to perform, with its scope and fees agreed independently.
Ethos Administrative Attorney Office offers a free preliminary review of an E-7 supplementation notice, the existing employment contract, hiring justification, and available supporting records to help distinguish documentation errors, insufficient explanation or evidence, and underlying eligibility concerns, and to identify which additional materials should be checked.
Three-line summary
An E-7 request for additional documents does not automatically require a new employment contract. First identify whether immigration is questioning the employment terms, job duties, applicant qualifications, or employer eligibility.
Inaccurate records should be corrected to reflect the actual facts, but rewriting a document cannot cure an underlying eligibility shortfall. A supplementation request is neither an approval nor a refusal.
Check the submission deadline and method, compare the existing documents with the actual employment arrangements, and prepare the corrections or supporting evidence relevant to the notice.