Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to develop an evaluation system using the weighted-values of various users and experts for the public space to apply Universal Design, and additionally to find out the commonalities and differences by comparing the importance of evaluation indicators between users and expert groups. Method: A one-sample t-test was conducted to verify that the components of the public space to universal design application are suitable as evaluation indicators, and AHP(analytic hierarchy process) was performed to derive weight-values for the evaluation system. Results: The importance-values for the total 23 facilities to be used as evaluation indicators were derived by multiplying the weighted-values of each sector, domain, and facility by the disabled, non-disabled, and experts. To summarize the results of overall importance-values derived from the AHP, The disabled showed high-rank weighted-values in facilities of building sector > park & recreation sector > cross domain and low-rank weighted-values for sidewalk and roadway domain. The non-disabled showed high-rank weighted-values in facilities of park & recreation sector > roadway domain > building sector > cross domain and low-rank weighted-values for sidewalk domain. Experts mainly showed high-rank weighted-values in the cross domain and in facilities related to entry and movement to the target space in all sectors and domains. However, it showed moderate importance-values in the sanitary space. The disabled who are restricted to movement have a high demand for universal design in buildings consisting of vertical moving line, and non-disabled people who are not limited to physical movement have a high demand for universal design in parks and recreation sector for increased leisure time. It means that experts are important to recognize the principles of making space because they value cross domain and the key spaces and facilities for suitable the purpose of use. In addition, it can be inferred that non-disabled people have a higher demand for safety than disabled people due to their high importance in roadway domain and facilities of safety and disaster prevention. Implications: The significance of this study is the establishment of a quantitative universal design evaluation system for public spaces considering the different perspectives of the disabled and the non-disabled.