Objectives: The purpose of this study is to review the debate on the Article 28(Prohibition of Inhouse-Contract for Harmful Work) of the Industrial Safety and Health Law. Methods: Literatures and recent debate for prohibition and permission of inhouse-contract for harmful work were reviewed. Proposals of revision for the Article 28 of the Industrial Safety and Health Law were also reviewed. Results: It was not found reasonable to revise the Article 28 based on increased fatal accidents or diseases in the electroplating work and heavy metals handling works that are currently listed in the Presidential Decree under the law as the harmful works. Regulation types of prohibition or authorization for any harmful work shall have inherently poor coverage since the scope of application is extremely limited. Contractors for maintenance and repair of chemical facilities may not be included in the scope of application if the harmful works are defined as chemical handling works. If harmful works are prohibited, the contractor workers may loose their jobs. Therefore, it is necessary to consider balancing job security and occupational safety and health safety. Conclusions: Various limitations were found in the Article 28 and the proposals to revise it. Currently in-house subcontracting is widely spread in the workplace. Therefore, it may be inappropriate to set one or two Article such as the Article 28 and 29 to protect in-house subcontract workers from injury and illness. It is believed that it needs fundamental redirection and new approach with new paradigm to impose occupational safety and health duty to prime contractors.