Purpose : If electron, chosen for superficial oncotherapy, was applied with bolus, it could work as an important factor to a therapy result by showing a drastic change in surface dose. Hence the calculation value and the actual measurement value of surface dose of Treatment Planning System (TPS) according to four variables influencing surface dose when using bolus on an electron therapy were compared and analyzed in this paper. Materials and Methods : Four variables which frequently occur during the actual therapies (A: bolus thickness - 3, 5, 10 mm, B: field size - $6{\time}6$, $10{\time}10$, $15{\time}15cm2$, C: energy - 6, 9, 12 MeV, D: gantry angle - $0^{\circ}$, $15^{\circ}$) were set to compare the actual measurement value with TPS(Pinnacle 9.2, philips, USA). A computed tomography (lightspeed ultra 16, General Electric, USA) was performed using 16 cm-thick solid water phantom without bolus and total 54 beams where A, B, C, and D were combined after creating 3, 5 and 10 mm bolus on TPS were planned for a therapy. At this moment SSD 100 cm, 300 MU was investigated and measured twice repeatedly by placing it on iso-center by using EBT3 film(International Specialty Products, NJ, USA) to compare and analyze the actual measurement value and TPS. Measured film was analyzed with each average value and standard deviation value using digital flat bed scanner (Expression 10000XL, EPSON, USA) and dose density analyzing system (Complete Version 6.1, RIT, USA). Results : For the values according to the thickness of bolus, the actual measured values for 3, 5 and 10 mm were 101.41%, 99.58% and 101.28% higher respectively than the calculation values of TPS and the standard deviations were 0.0219, 0.0115 and 0.0190 respectively. The actual values according to the field size were $6{\time}6$, $10{\time}10$ and $15{\time}15cm2$ which were 99.63%, 101.40% and 101.24% higher respectively than the calculation values and the standard deviations were 0.0138, 0.0176 and 0.0220. The values according to energy were 6, 9, and 12 MeV which were 99.72%, 100.60% and 101.96% higher respectively and the standard deviations were 0.0200, 0.0160 and 0.0164. The actual measurement value according to beam angle were measured 100.45% and 101.07% higher at $0^{\circ}$ and $15^{\circ}$ respectively and standard deviations were 0.0199 and 0.0190 so they were measured 0.62% higher at $15^{\circ}$ than $0^{\circ}$. Conclusion : As a result of analyzing the calculation value of TPS and measurement value according to the used variables in this paper, the values calculated with TPS on 5 mm bolus, $6{\time}6cm2$ field size and low-energy electron at $0^{\circ}$ gantry angle were closer to the measured values, however, it showed a modest difference within the error bound of maximum 2%. If it was beyond the bounds of variables selected in this paper using electron and bolus simultaneously, the actual measurement value could differ from TPS according to each variable, therefore QA for the accurate surface dose would have to be performed.