For developing the site-specific fertilizer management strategies of crop, it is essential to know the spatial variability of soil factors and to assess their influence on the variability of crop growth and yield. In 2002 and 2003 cropping seasons within-field spatial variability of rice growth and yield was examined in relation to spatial variation of soil properties in the· two paddy fields having each area of ca. $6,600m^2$ in Suwon, Korea. The fields were managed without fertilizer or with uniform application of N, P, and K fertilizer under direct-seeded and transplanted rice. Stable soil properties such as content of clay (Clay), total nitrogen (TN), organic mater (OM), silica (Si), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and rice growth and yield were measured in each grid of $10 imes10m$. The two fields showed quite similar spatial variation in soil properties, showing the smallest coefficient of variation (CV) in Clay $(7.6\%)$ and the largest in Si $(21.4\%)$. The CV of plant growth parameters measured at panicle initiation (PIS) and heading stage (HD) ranged from 6 to $38\%$, and that of rice yield ranged from 11 to $21\%$. CEC, OM, TN, and available Si showed significant correlations with rice growth and yield. Multiple linear regression model with stepwise procedure selected independent variables of N fertilizer level, climate condition and soil properties, explaining as much as $76\%$ of yield variability, of which $21.6\%$ is ascribed to soil properties. Among the soil properties, the most important soil factors causing yield spatial variability was OM, followed by Si, TN, and CEC. Boundary line response of rice yield to soil properties was represented well by Mitcherich equation (negative exponential equation) that was used to quantify the influence of soil properties on rice yield, and then the Law of the Minimum was used to identify the soil limiting factor for each grid. This boundary line approach using five stable soil properties as limiting factor explained an average of about $50\%$ of the spatial yield variability. Although the determination coefficient was not very high, an advantage of the method was that it identified clearly which soil parameter was yield limiting factor and where it was distributed in the field.