This paper examines the legal nature and effectiveness of the inter-Korean agreements, such as the Panmunjom Declaration, and analyzes them separately from the legal effect when there is no parliamentary consent to ratify them, while comparing them with the basic treaty of East-West Germany before reunification. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that 'a treaty concluded and promulgated under the Constitution and generally approved international laws have the same effect as domestic laws (Article 6, Clause 1)." However, Article 3 of the Constitution states that "the territory of the Republic of Korea shall be the Korean Peninsula and its annexes," and so there is a controversy over the legal effect of the agreement between the two Koreas due to contradictory constitutional regulations. In addition, there is a view that parliamentary ratification may be required to secure the normative power of the inter-Korean agreement, and that inter-Korean parliamentary talks should be held, and that exchanges between the two Koreas' National Assembly and exchanges between the two Koreas' political parties should be maintained in order to ensure that the inter-Korean agreement remains effective regardless of the change of the ruling party. In response, this paper reviews the progress of the inter-Korean parliamentary talks and the future direction. Unlike the preceding studies, the focus is on discussing the legal nature of the inter-Korean agreement and the ratification of the National Assembly, the progress of the inter-Korean parliamentary talks, and the direction of its implementation.