"The man is in Korea."
Translation:남자가 한국에 있습니다.
That's also how you would say "There is no money".
On its own, its generally understood that "I" is the topic of the sentence. Transliterated (to include "I") would be "As for I, talking about money, there is none". Your translation would be better if spoken as a standalone sentence. If someone just opened a treasure chest, they might depressingly state the same thing which would then mean "There is no money (here)." Context is everything.
I think because...
If u ask, WHO is in korea.... Then its 남자가 because it is THE 남자 who is in korea not anybody else. In short, u are emphasizing that "THAT MAN" is in korea.
If you ask, WHAT is in korea.... Then it is 남자는 because it is a 남자 but not a specific 남자. In short you are just saying that MAN is in korea...
Please correct me if you know the answer already, im not sure as well....
I recommend this link that explain more about it:
Not quite; Korean doesn't have anything that serves the function of English articles "a/an" and "the", and English doesn't have anything that serves the function of the topic marker 는/은 or the subject marker 이/가. The two languages are vastly different grammatically, and ultimately it will take practise to know whether to use 는/은 or 가/이 in a given context.
에 is a marker for location/time. It's like "at", but sometimes can be like "to".
이/가 vs 은/는 is a hard one to explain simply. The following website may help.
The form of "(place)에서 (verb)" usually denotes that you have to go to that place and then do the action there.
Like, "I work at school." is "저는 학교에서 일해요.", denoting that I must go to the school and then do my work there.
I don't think "한국에서 있습니다" makes sense gramatically. It's kind of implying that you must first go to Korea and then once you're in Korea, you start to exist.