The aim of this study was to compare the marginal leakage of class II light curing composite resin restoration according to filling methods. With using acid etching technique and dentin bonding agent, various methods were suggested to eliminate or reduce the marginal leakage. In this study, class II cavities were prepared in 100 extracted human premolars with cementum margin(1mm below the CEJ) and the teeth were randomly assigned to 5 groups of 20 teeth each. The teeth in group 1, 2, 3 and 4 were restored by direct filling methods using P-50 and Clearfil Photoposterior of 10 teeth each, but the method of insertion of the restorative materials varied with each group. And the teeth in group 5 were restored by inlay method using Kulzer Inlay and CR Inlay. Filling methods are as follows : Group 1 : The composite resin was inserted in one layer in the proximal box and one layer in the occlusal portion. Group 2 : Insertion was in two equally thick horizontal layers in the proximal box. Group 3 : Insertion was in two diagonally placed layers in the proximal box. Group 4 : The composite resin was inserted in the same way as in group 3 except that a glass ionomer liner was first placed on the axial wall and gingival floor. Group 5 : The teeth were restored by Inlay technique using dure cure resin cement. All the teeth were thermocycled, stained with 1 % methylene blue solution, sectioned mesiodistally, and scored for marginal leakage. To compare the marginal leakage, ANOVA and T-test were used in analysis. The following results were obtained : 1. In direct filling methods, there was no significant difference in marginal leakage at both occlusal and cervical margins. 2. In all groups, occlusal margin showed significantly less leakage than cervical margin. 3. In group using glass ionomer liner, there was no significant reduction of marginal leakage at the cervical margin. 4. The group restored by inlay method showed significantly less marginal leakage than groups restored by direct filling methods at both occlusal and gingival margins. 5. There was no significant difference in each group according to filling materials.