Employers Exploit Migrant Workers… “Pay Up” to Change Workplaces

1. Overview

There have been cases in which employers demanded millions of won in exchange for agreeing to terminate a contract when migrant workers under the Employment Permit System (E-9) wanted to change workplaces or quit. The cases came to light one after another, beginning with a case in Goheung, South Jeolla Province, in 2024, then continuing through Gwangju, Naju, Yeosu, and Mokpo, and reaching Miryang, South Gyeongsang Province, in 2026. The amounts demanded also grew from 1.5 million won to as much as 7 million won.

Migrant worker groups call this “effectively human trafficking.” Under the Employment Permit System, E-9 workers have difficulty changing workplaces without their employer’s consent, and leaving without consent can put their visa status at risk. As a result, workers find it difficult to refuse demands for money, and some employers are said to exploit that vulnerability. The Ministry of Employment and Labor, however, has said that it has no authority to directly stop such demands or recover the money, bringing the system’s gaps into focus.

2. Why do workers have to pay to leave?

The Employment Permit System allows small and medium-sized businesses that struggle to find domestic workers to hire migrant workers with government approval. As a rule, E-9 workers cannot freely change workplaces; they need a legally recognized reason, such as their employer agreeing to terminate the labor contract or the contract period ending. Workers may change workplaces without their employer’s consent if the labor office recognizes circumstances specified in official regulations as “reasons not attributable to the worker,” such as unpaid wages or assault. If those circumstances are not recognized, however, workers effectively have to rely on their employer’s consent.

Workers also face the burden of finding a new job within the statutory three-month job-search period after changing workplaces. According to data provided by the Ministry of Employment and Labor to Lee Yong-woo, a Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker, there were more than 11,000 cases from 2021 to 2025 in which workers exceeded this period and faced the risk of becoming undocumented or being deported. The number rose to 3,708 in 2025. Workers are also anxious that their residence status could be adversely affected if an employer reports them as having “absconded.” This suggests that employers’ demands for money are made within a system in which workers cannot easily refuse.

3. A succession of cases

3.1. Goheung, Gwangju, and Naju

In October 2024, it came to light that an employer in Goheung, South Jeolla Province, had demanded 3 million won in exchange for allowing a workplace change. In June 2025, Cambodian workers at the Pyeongdong Industrial Complex in Gwangju and at a farm in Naju each paid between 1 million and 2 million won for a workplace change but were unable to get their money back until after a Ministry of Employment and Labor investigation began. In November of the same year, a support group held a press conference in front of the Gwangju Regional Employment and Labor Office, publicizing the cases and calling for a comprehensive investigation.

3.2. Yeosu — 5 million won per worker

In September 2026, a case involving a fishing business in Yeosu came to light. According to a support group, the employer reported workers as having absconded when one asked to take just a day off because he was sick, and continued to pressure them by making further absconding reports while they were out working. The employer then cut off gas, electricity, and water at their accommodation and told them to “get out.” The workers slept outdoors, and when they requested a workplace change, the employer demanded a total of 25 million won—5 million won per worker—then said he would “lower it to 2.5 million won.” The Yeosu branch of the Ministry of Employment and Labor recognized the repeated false absconding reports as grounds for terminating the contract and terminated the labor contract by administrative order.

3.3. Mokpo — 7 million won per worker

Around the same time, a case involving two workers from Vietnam came to light in Mokpo. In August 2026, as the deadline to obtain their alien registration cards approached, they asked to postpone fishing operations by just one day. In response, they were told to “get out,” and the electricity and gas at their accommodation were cut off. When the workers asked to terminate their labor contracts, the employer demanded 7 million won per worker as a condition for changing workplaces, and reportedly told them, in response to their pleas to lower the amount, that “anything below 6 million won is out of the question.” On October 1, 43 civic, labor, and human rights groups in South Jeolla and Gwangju held a press conference in front of the Mokpo branch of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, criticizing the branch for failing to respond even though the workers had filed a complaint on August 24.

3.4. Miryang — “I’m going to pay the boss 1.5 million won”

On October 7, 2026, Maeil Labor News exclusively reported a case in Miryang, South Gyeongsang Province. A worker from Nepal, Mr. A, had endured forced work, including unilateral changes to his days off, until he could take no more and decided to quit in mid-August. His employer told him, “If you want to leave, come up with 1.5 million won.” A video was released showing him counting 50,000-won and 10,000-won notes in the company dormitory and saying, “Tomorrow I’m going to pay the boss 1.5 million won.” He paid the money and left the workplace the following day. More than 10 people are reportedly known to have paid to leave in this way. This supports the view that the issue is not confined to South Jeolla and Gwangju. The former head of the Jeonnam Labor Rights Center said that similar consultations had come in from Gunsan in North Jeolla Province, Boryeong and Seosan in South Chungcheong Province, Gyeonggi Province, Gangwon Province, and other areas just this year.

4. The Ministry of Employment and Labor’s response

Whenever cases involving demands for money come to light, the Ministry of Employment and Labor investigates the workplaces and decides whether to approve workplace changes. It approved a workplace change in the Yeosu case and is investigating the employer in the Mokpo case involving a demand of 7 million won. However, demands for money are not explicitly listed as a reason for changing workplaces, so the ministry can approve a change on its own authority only if other grounds are also recognized. A ministry official said that adding demands for money to the official regulations was “not currently under consideration.”

The ministry also has no authority to make workers’ money be returned. A ministry official said, “We might be able to tell them to return it, but there is no legal provision to compel them, so we cannot issue a corrective order.” As a result, workers must file a lawsuit themselves to recover the money, a high barrier for migrant workers concerned about repercussions for their status and the cost of litigation. The ministry recently sent employers a notice stating that demands for money may violate the law.

5. Authenticity debate

Some of the cases have been confirmed by Ministry of Employment and Labor investigations (the termination of the Yeosu contract by administrative order and the refunds in Gwangju and Naju), while the Mokpo and Miryang cases are still under investigation. The remaining question is whether this is misconduct by a handful of employers or a widespread problem created by the structure of the Employment Permit System.

5.1. The view that it is a structural problem

Support groups argue that this is not misconduct by individual workplaces but a “generalized situation.” The cases have continued year after year since 2024, spreading across more regions, while the amounts demanded have risen from 1.5 million won to as much as 7 million won. Under a system in which workers find it difficult to leave without their employer’s consent and risk their residence status if they cannot find new work within three months, an employer’s “consent” can be turned into money. When even the Ministry of Employment and Labor acknowledges that it has no means to stop demands for money or ensure that workers get their money back, can this really be regarded as a problem involving only a few unscrupulous employers? The Migrant Workers Union argued that allowing workers to change workplaces without their employer’s consent would encourage employers to improve working conditions rather than demand money.

5.2. The view that it is misconduct by a few

On the other hand, the cases that have come to light so far involve dozens of workers, while the number of E-9 workers has reached 340,000. There has been no nationwide official survey, so the extent of the problem is unknown. Most cases have become known through complaints by workers and claims by support groups, while employers’ explanations have not been reported. There have also been cases in which workers received relief under the existing system, such as the Yeosu case, in which the Ministry of Employment and Labor terminated the contract by administrative order on the basis of false absconding reports. Thus, some argue that the priority should be to strictly punish the employers involved in confirmed cases and investigate the situation, rather than generalizing it as a problem with the entire Employment Permit System. Nevertheless, although it has been argued that demands for money in exchange for terminating contracts could be punishable as extortion or interference with workplace changes, no actual cases of punishment have yet been reported.

6. Trivia

• In the fourth quarter of 2025, the number of workplaces under the Employment Permit System was 58,142, up 19.8% from three years earlier, while the number of E-9 workers residing in the country was 344,403, up 28.3% over the same period. The number of workers therefore grew faster than the number of workplaces. The average time needed to change workplaces also increased from 25.7 days in 2021 to 39.3 days in 2025.
• It has also been pointed out that the “regional mobility restrictions” introduced by the government in 2023 narrowed the areas where workers could find new jobs, lengthening the job-search period.