Peace regime on the Korean Peninsula draws increasing attention since the 9.19 joint statement in conclusion of the fourth Six-Party Talks was issued. The main reason for the failure of establishing the durable peace regime on the Peninsula lies not in the defects of ideas and proposals, but in the lack of genuine intention of two Koreas in peace negotiations. This article tries to refresh the approach to peace regime under new situation defined by post-Cold War, South Korea’s engagement policy toward the North, and the second North Korean nuclear crisis. Analysis of the past peace negotiation illustrates several implications. First, two Korea’s peace proposals and policies have been instrumental in achieving purposes of respective national security strategies. Second, each peace proposals have been very sensitive to changing balance of power surrounding the Peninsula. Third, two Koreas have been also very reflective of changing balance of power between them.Fourth, two Koreas changed their positions of aggressiveness and passivity due to changing power distribution. In the Cold War period, North Korea had been very aggressive in advancing peace initiative, whereas the South became more positive after the end of the Cold War. To achieve positive peace on the Peninsula aiming at the eradication of structural and indirect violence, a more holistic approach will be necessary based in the reflection of past failures and future possibilities.