Recently, the number of high-rise buildings is increasing due to overcrowding of cities, and the Strength Resistive Core System (SRCS) is becoming one of the most frequently chosen systems for designing high-rise buildings. In case of the SRCS, stress may build on strength resistive cores with a larger lateral stiffness against lateral force more so than the outer moment frames with relatively less lateral stiffness. However, if the strength resistive core and outer moment frame are each regarded as two separate structures and connected with a damper, one can expect that the damper’s plastic behavior through relative displacement caused by a difference in the natural period of vibration, will dissipate energy and significantly reduce lateral displacement. This research conducts a shaking table test to verify seismic capacity of a Dual-frame Vibration Control System (DVCS) using a steel hysteretic damper. Also, this study verifies improved seismic capacity of the DVCS by comparing experiment results of the DVCS with the SRCS. This research analyses the characteristics of the dynamic responses of the DVCS by conducting a shaking table test. Specimens are composed of the SRCS and DVCS to conduct a comparison between the existing system and the DVCS recommended by this research. The seismic wave used in this experiment is an El-Centro NS wave, and the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of the seismic wave was divided into 8 steps and processed through a step-by-step process. As a result of the shaking table test, the acceleration of the SRCS and DVCS demonstrated a similar response as far as excitation level 4 during which the structure was experiencing elasticity. However, going over excitation level 6, the response acceleration for the DVCS decreased relatively to the SRCS due to plastification of the damper. During excitation of level 8 in particular, the maximum response acceleration of the DVCS at the top floor was reduced by 55.2% in comparison with the SRCS. Furthermore, the displacement of the SRCS and DVCS demonstrated a similar response during excitation level 2 and 4 during which the structure was experiencing elasticity. However, during excitation level 6 and 8, the damper went through plastification and the DVCS''s maximum response displacement was reduced more so than the SRCS. During excitation of level 8, the maximum response displacement of the DVCS at the top floor was reduced by 35.4% in comparison with the SRCS. Moreover, in case of the SRCS, the damage was concentrated on the column in the first floor, while the DVCS showed dispersion of damage throughout all floors. Also, the main structure members such as the beams and the columns sustained almost no damage due to which the damage was mostly concentrated on the damper. At the final excitation level, the damage of the damper was evenly spread out throughout all floors. Although most of the core frame parts went through plastification for the SRCS, the DVCS maintained elasticity although the core frame on first floor sustained some plastification. It has been emphasized that installed dampers in the proposed DVCS reduce the input energy of whole structure by absorbing seismic input energy, leading to a reduction of overall system damage. This demonstrates the improved seismic capacity of the DVCS compared to the SRCS.