The Product Liability Act has recently been amended and will be enforced on April 19, 2018. This amendment is based on the issue of consumer safety such as humidifier disinfection case and Volkswagen emission gas manipulation case which became a serious problem in our society in 2016. It contains following three points. That is, ① introduction of punitive damages system for malicious illegal act of the manufacturer, ② relaxation of the consumer 's burden of proving the defect of the product and causality and ③ strengthening the liability of the product supplier such as the seller. In this paper, I examined the process of the parliamentary debate on the amendment bill, analyzed its content, and reviewed its implications and limitations. In conclusion, ① the requirement of punitive damages under the revised law is strict (intentional inevitability of necessary measures) and there is no consideration in relieving burden of proof of the requirement. ② Considering that there is a limit to the burden of proof by information bias on the mitigation for burden of proof in the amendment law, ultimately it is necessary to supplement the information submission order system(Korean Discovery System) or to relax the requirements of the amendment law. Finally, ③ even if the supplier's liability is strengthened, the supplier will notify the consumer of the identity of the manufacturer and the supplier will be not take responsibility. So legislative improvement is needed to recognize the supplier as the subject of product liability when the manufacturer can not bear product liability. The amendment realized within 15 years after the legislation should be evaluated only by the symbolic significance of the three revised points, but it should be noted that due to its ‘limitation’ it may be remain in the unsubstantial revision which is far from the relief of consumer’s damages. So, first of all, more flexible interpretation of the law should be applied so that the significance of the revised law is not misunderstood.