Trust has been recognized as a factor that positively influences organizational members' attitudes and behaviors, as well as organizational effectiveness, and has received considerable research attention. Domestic research on trust began in the 2000s and has increased dramatically in quantity. However, efforts to review past domestic trust research and suggest future research directions have been considered insufficient. Accordingly, this study analyzed a total of 96 trust studies published in domestic journals in the fields of organizational behavior and human resource management/organization over the past decade, identifying research trends and limitations, and suggesting future research directions. This study is organized into three main sections. First, it describes how the studies analyzed in this research were selected and analyzed, then provides an in-depth analysis of domestic trust research trends from four perspectives: the concept of trust, measurement instruments, empirical research, and research methods. Finally, it offers suggestions for future research directions and summarizes the significance and limitations of this study. The trends in domestic trust research can be summarized as follows. (1) From a conceptual perspective: First, similar to international research trends, many studies approach trust from a psychological state perspective, defining trust as an intention to be vulnerable to the other party's actions based on positive perceptions of the other party. Second, trustworthiness—positive perceptions of the other party's attributes—is also widely used as a definition of trust, and some studies addressing the relationship between trust and trustworthiness have also emerged. Third, studies approaching trust as a multidimensional concept have been conducted steadily, but discussion regarding the relationships among sub-dimensions and their compositional forms has not yet taken place. (2) Regarding measurement instruments: First, the trust measurement instruments used in domestic research are highly diverse, and the extent to which specific instruments are consistently utilized appears insufficient. Second, overall, trust definitions and measurement instruments are aligned, though some studies show inconsistencies, which is a phenomenon similar to trends in the utilization of measurement instruments internationally. Third, in some studies using multidimensional measurement instruments that distinguish cognitive trust from affective trust, the factor structure of trust is not clearly differentiated. (3) From the empirical research perspective analyzing the content of empirical studies: First, supervisors'/executives' transformational and transactional leadership and organizational justice are frequently examined as antecedents of trust, while job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and organizational citizenship behavior are frequently addressed as outcome variables. Second, it can be noted that relatively few studies have examined job or organizational characteristics and trustors' individual characteristics as antecedents. Third, research on moderating variables that influence the relationship between antecedents and trust or between trust and outcome variables is also lacking. Fourth, the magnitude of trust's effect on outcome variables follows the order of attitudes, behaviors, and performance, which is similar to findings in international research. However, the finding that procedural justice shows a stronger relationship with organizational trust, and the finding that the effects of trust in supervisors versus organizational trust on outcome variables are not consistent, are considered somewhat different from international research. (4) Trends in research methods are as follows: First, the majority of studies are empirical studies based on survey research, and conceptual studies on trust are somewhat lacking. Second, many studies have treated trust as an antecedent. Third, many studies have examined trust in vertical relationships between supervisors/executives and members. Fourth, data collection from a single source dominates, and studies collecting data from multiple sources are relatively scarce. Fifth, while research on interpersonal trust has been extensively conducted, research on inter-organizational trust is also being pursued. Sixth, the diversity of research subjects can be noted, with studies being conducted on not only business organizations but also public enterprises, nonprofit organizations, and foreigners. Based on the above analysis, the following suggestions for future directions in domestic trust research are offered. First, diversification of perspectives on trust is needed, and to this end, it is necessary to diversify research methods and measurement instruments and to study the conceptual relationship between trust and distrust. Second, it is suggested that comparable research findings should be accumulated by consistently using specific measurement instruments, and care should be taken to ensure alignment between the definition and measurement of trust. Third, in-depth research on the sub-dimensions of trust is needed, including studies on the developmental processes and compositional forms of sub-dimensions, and the relationships between cultural characteristics and sub-dimensions. Fourth, research on the dynamic processes of trust formation, destruction, and recovery is needed. Fifth, to broaden the understanding of trust, the study recommended research on the relationship between trust and emotion, the effects of organizational characteristics on trust, the negative consequences of trust, and moderating variables of trust. Sixth, the study recommended research on expanding the subjects of trust research, including horizontal subjects (peers) and complex subjects, research that simultaneously considers the trustor and trustee, and inter-organizational trust research.