Translation:There is no park.
Hmm. This is problematic and, read at face value, largely untrue. You could say that many foreign loanwords of non-Chinese origin passed into Korean via Japanese, that would be true. 빵, 라디에타 (래디에터), 깁스, etc. But many of these have later been changed to reflect an Englishish pronunciation, when applicable. Think words like the aforementioned 래디에터.
Some old folks still remember their parents occassionally saying words like 와라바시 instead of 젓가락, but again, these have largely been displaced in favor of earlier Korean forms or English words.
You got a lot of hate from users who seem to have a pro-Japanese historical perspective, which is odd. But you're actually right. Korea often served as a conduit for Chinese culture and science into Japan, which surely must include Buddhist and Confucian-themed neologisms. Japanese loanwords into Korean, meanwhile, generally take the form of European loanwords passed to Korean as Japan,as well as some culinary terms. Though, these days the latter is now a two-way street.
Is it? Wikipedia does not seem to agree:
How can I know when is it a negative sentence and when is it positive? I have gotten this wrong like 4 times because when it comes to translate it I write down: "There is a park". And it's actually not wrong, the problem is that I can't recognize the negative structure that it has.
With apologies to Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. In English the word "is" has multiple functions. You can express equality between two things ("the sky is blue"); in linguistics this is known as a copular verb. Alternatively, you can also express existence ("there isn't a park") or location ("I am at the school").
In Korean these meanings have different words. 이다 or 아니다 (formal form: 입니다 / 아닙니다; polite form: 이에요* / 아니에요) expresses whether or not two things are equal.
The sky is blue.
저는 학생이 아닙니다.
I am not a student.
* If the word preceding 이에요 ends with a vowel, then it turns into 예요 instead.
있다 or 없다 (formal: 있습니다 / 없습니다; polite: 있어요 / 없어요) expresses existence of something (in a particular location, in someone's possession, etc.)
뉴욕은 미국에 있어요.
New York is in the United States.
저는 책이 없어요.
I don't have a book. [Speaking about me, there is no book.]
There isn't a park.
Is it possible to use the topic marking particle instead of the subject one with park?