Since the turn of the 21st century, the growing interdependence and interconnectedness of the global economies intensified the need for individual economies to engage in regional economic cooperation and integration. Recent statistics indicate that the number of regional trade agreements notified to the WTO by APEC economies has reached 265 cases, making it the most prolific period in APEC history. Given this upsurge, the significance of policy coordination and cooperation within the framework of APEC’s Regional Economic Integration activities ― inter alia, discussion on implementing “Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP)” ― has attracted considerable attention from Korean policy makers and stakeholders. APEC’s vision to create a single economic community was designed not only to reduce obstacles of trade in goods and services but also to adopt more advanced trade- and investment-related rules and measures to increase the transparency and efficiency of the economic system. Successful regulatory reforms and conformity to the international rules and standards embodied in the FTAAP framework, therefore, would help accelerate the regional economic restructuring and opening of the Asia-Pacific economy. These will eventually provide the Korean economy with increased participation in global value chains (GVCs), the export and investment markets, and strengthen political and economic ties among members. In this context, the opportunity cost of being excluded from the general trend of economic integration has become a tangible threat. At the critical juncture of reinvigorating the Regional Economic Integration (REI) agenda, 21 APEC economic leaders will convene in Hanoi in November 2017. The main objective of their 25th annual meeting is to stimulate both individual and collective economic reform and keep up the momentum of ensuring the formation of an Asia Pacific Economic Community. Against this backdrop, this paper attempts to draw the following policy implications and suggest concrete areas and ways in which Korea can contribute to the progress of APEC REI activities, then share the benefit of integration with members. First of all, as a mid- to long-term policy initiative, Korea may consider to design a new integration model building on its existing FTA networks with major powers. For example, the sequence and combination of this scheme may take the following patterns: ① Korea, USA, Japan (KUJ) + NAFTA (5 countries) or ② Australia, New Zealand (7 countries) + APEC ASEAN Member States (13). Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, Singapore, USA, and Vietnam are already signatories to Korea’s existing bilateral FTAs and have been promoting market-driven trade and investment policy measures as their growth engine. At the same time, Korea’s strengthening its economic cooperation scheme with the ASEAN and Pacific Alliance market has attracted considerable attention. The relevance of its continuous market openings and comprehensive reform agenda supported by strong political commitment from the new government is another important factor that underpins Korea’s potential to be a new leader of regional economic integration. The idea of open regionalism has evolved into the realm of behind the border issues, service, labor, climates and environment cooperation, which are the main components of the 21st century regional integration model. As a short term strategy, development of the “APEC Regulation Principle of Service Sector” will contribute to the fostering of the 4th industrial revolution with the growth of communication, IT and professional service sectors in member economies. One of the biggest constraints on progress towards structural adjustment and cooperative arrangements to move APEC’s integration agenda is largely the issue of sharing information, experience, expertise and knowledge. This kind of cooperation is in line with the comparative advantage of Korea in its capacity as an early adapter of an outward- oriented policy strategy. In particular, considering the challenges lying ahead, Korea could make tailored policy suggestions in the area of human resource development, and the number of instruments, measures and initiatives most likely to make a positive contribution to the integration process. In the process, this will ensure growing confidence in strengthening collaboration with APEC members as a means of propelling a growth engine that is inclusive and sustainable. In practice, such an outward- looking policy forces the market to minimize the negative impact of trade diversion and make the regional market more competitive. A strategy for the REI process needs to be consistent with the strategic context and purpose of members’ unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral commitments. It needs to take advantage of experience in developed APEC members. Therefore, if APEC’s REI agenda could be linked to the Korean-initiated Capacity Building Needs Initiative program, the developing member economies may be able to enjoy significant economic gains from economic integration without having to pay extra policy cost. To retain the relevance of this agenda, it is recommended to assess which potential areas are likely to make a positive contribution to the REI process.