This study was conducted to observe the differences in perspective of medical device adverse events and report exchange for domestic stakeholders. The post market surveillance of medical device, which is a core component of quality management system is becoming more important. The post market surveillance of medical device not only improves the usability and functionality of the device, but also identifies new or growing risks due to the device. Globally, regulators encourage reporting of incidents relating to medical devices by consumers, patients, clinicians, and distributors of devices, but the rate of reporting remains low. APEC have established and operate post market surveillance systems for medical devices on the basis of IMDRF and GHTF guidelines. However, there are significant gaps in many aspects. It is important not only to apply harmonized guidelines internationally but also to interpret and apply the guidelines consistently in order to report and exchange medical device adverse event in domestic. This study retrospectively analyzed the results of surveys conducted by providing examples of the adverse events and guidelines for post market surveillance. The results of the study showed that there was a considerable difference in the judgment on the starting point of patient use of medical devices. And different opinions were expressed according to the health impact from the event of the patients received, when the adverse event occurred, other regulations across countries, lack of understanding of the guideline, and personal knowledge and experience. Education and training are needed to have a harmonized perspective on the reporting and exchange international guidelines of the adverse event for domestic stakeholders. It can improve accuracy and reliability by reducing uncertainty and confusion about reporting and exchanging about medical device adverse events.