Today when most advanced countries have abolished foreign exchange control regulations, the definition of foreign direct investment in such countries has meaning only for the purpose of statistics. In principle, each country should pay regard to the globally recommended standard definition for foreign direct investment. However, the Korean situation is not so simple. Given its ongoing foreign exchange controls, Korea needs a definition that serves the purpose of its foreign exchange controls. Though Korea has applied the same definition to both statistics and foreign exchange regulations, we may need two definitions each for statistics and foreign exchange control. The current Korean definition of foreign direct investment is somewhat different from that of the OECD Benchmark Definition, so it is not statistically comparable with other OECD countries. On the other hand the Korean definition also cannot satisfy Korean``s own purpose, foreign exchange controls because it reflects many characteristics of the OECD Benchmark Definition which are not relevant from the viewpoint of foreign exchange control. The examples for the former are : (1) the fact that a Korean parent company``s acquiring debt securities issued by foreign subsidiaries is excluded from foreign direct investment in Korea``s definition, but included in the OECD definition, and (2) the fact that foreign construction services, overseas flight or transportation services, etc. undertaken by a foreign branch of a resident company are excluded from Korea``s definition, but included in the OECD definition. An example for the latter is the inclusion of lower level affiliates of foreign direct investment companies into foreign direct investment enterprises even though such affiliates have little meaning for the purpose of foreign exchange controls.