This article reviews critically the themes which the alternative discourses of Korean economy treated and points other themes which should be included but ignored by them. The core of my critique is as follows. First, the debates of chaebol(Korean conglomerate own by families) reform and reenforcement of small and medium sized businesses cannot solve the fundamental economic problems insofar as taking no account of the issues who to take possession of the produced surplus labor, how to democratize the process of producing surplus, and the problem of concentration of economic power and political power of large corporations as result of competition, with pursuing the superficial issues of sharing and redistribution of management right and redistributing the produced surplus. Second, the conception of general welfare or basic income is semi-finished alternative which ignores the issues what other forms of socioeconomic basis to be transformed into to realize that conception and how to realize this transformation. Third, despite of every alternative being grounded on open economy and suggesting innovation-friendly mechanism, they didn"t present concretely who take lead the openness and innovation and to whom the fruits of those process to be distributed. As far as only describing the mechanism but the persons and enterprises spontaneously taking lead the opening and innovative process due to enjoying the fruit of this process, it is a semi-finished picture. There are the other tasks not mentioned by the alternatives. They are the issues of introduction of planning which could solve market failure problem and substitute market and those of labor process democracy. Eventually, although the alternatives mainly criticised market fundamentalism and neoliberal development of financial accumulation of Korean economy, they all nevertheless concede market and, revolving market, conceive the economy based on complementary adjustments and compromises with some measures such as knowledge, state, welfare, great social compromise, labour and basic income and do not call into question of market itself and capitalism with labor suppression and exploitation. In this sense, the alternatives are to seek better capitalism. This one-sidedness seems to come from the premise that socialism is not alternative. In this respect, the fundamental critique of those alternatives is presenting truly feasible and sustainable alternative which, going beyond market and capitalism and being based not on state directive planning but on democratic participatory planning economy, can exceed the limitation of existing alternative and include issues ignored. This truly feasible and sustainable alternative is socialism of participatory planning economy which can be formulated by improvement of and comparison between ‘Parecon model’ of Albert and Hahnel and ‘Labor time model’ of Cockshott and Cottrell.