We cannot deny the practicality of living modified organism (LMO) as an alternative to the development and supply of food resources which has become so called a global issue. Furthermore, the very purpose and method of LMO technology has rapidly developing as a production technology as well as an industry on its own. However, the development of LMO technologies is not also immune from the inherent risks that accompany with the development the modern industrial production, just as seen in the realities of modern industrial development. This is because it is believed that the phase when the scientific technologies are being applied on the production cannot be completely controlled. Despite the fact, the modern industrial technologies could continue to advance along with the corresponding legislation that was shaped as a result. This implies the task of establishing proper liability for damages and its related legislation is a precursor to such development for LMO technologies. Therefore, Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – which subsequently will be called Supplementary Protocol - signifies the advancement in provision of the international regulations and procedures for LMO liabilities between countries. We can expect this Supplementary Protocol to play the role of an international regulation equipped with legalistic unity as well as stability, which will be protected beyond regionalism. In addition, just as the probability of the litigation for LMO damage claims is rising, the environmental organization and the biotechnology industry have become more concerned about the issue. On one hand, the international legislation can play a more concrete and practical role only when accompanying a domestic legislation. In the case of Korea, we have the same problem of lawmaking for LMO technologies. Thus, this paper will examine through the regulations for civil liability according to Supplementary Protocol. We are also going to inspect the coordination between the international and domestic legislations for genetic engineering. Especially, the fact that the Act on the Regulation of Genetic Engineering of 1990 was the product of a long deliberation of German lawmakers, which was actually commenced from a counselor’s draft in 1978, implies in-depth concerns relating with this field. Such concerns for genetic engineering reveal the risky natures of field that cannot be completely controlled nor predicted. Of course, simply adopting Germany’s legislation for risk liability(Gefahrdungshaftung) in genetic engineering can be an inadequate response of Korean legal system to Supplementary Protocol. That’s why the theory of risk liability(Gefahrdungshaftung) should be accompanied by the reduction of Burden of Proof as well as Insurance Principle. For example, today’s Industrial Accident Compensation can hardly be viewed the same as the Damage Claims in civil law. Thus, if the risk liability(Gefahrdungshaftung) for the unpredictable nature of genetic engineering, which is the epitome of futuristic industrial technology, is to gain actual effect, the procedures for the reduction of Burden of Proof as well as Insurance Principle should also be considered.