감사인 교체유형이 재무제표 재작성에 미치는 영향 (The Effect of Auditor Change Type on Financial Statement Restatement)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국회계학회
· 수록지 정보 : 회계저널 / 31권 / 3호 / 61 ~ 95페이지
· 저자명 : 이성호, 유승원, 홍준용

초록

본 연구는 외부감사인 교체에 따른 교체유형이 과거 재무제표의 재작성 가능성에 미치는 영향에 대해 분석한다. 교체된 감사인은 전년도 재무제표에서 발견되지 않은 오류사항 또는 회계처리에 대해 다른 견해를 가질 수 있는 사항 등을 발견하게 되면 과거 재무제표 를 수정할 가능성이 높다. 이와 관련하여 선행연구에서 감사인 교체 후에 과거 재무제표에 대한 수정이 증가함을 밝히고 있는 바, 본 연구는 2014년부터 2019년까지 유가증권시장(KOSPI) 및 코스닥(KOSDAQ) 상장기업 10,267개 기업-연도 표본을 이용하여 감사인의 교체 유형에 따라, 감사인 교체에 따르는 산업전문성의 변화에 따라 과거 재무제표 재작성의 가능성이 차별적으로 나타나는지에 대하여 검토하였다. 실증분석 결과를 살펴보면, 첫 번째로 모든 감사인 교체유형에서 재무제표 재작성과 유의한 양(+)의 관계를 보였지만, Non-Big4에서 Big4로 교체된 경우가 다른 교체방향에 비해 더욱 높은 재작성 비율을 보였다. 두 번째로, 감사인 교체로 감사인의 산업전 문성이 증가하거나 비산업전문 감사인에서 산업전문 감사인으로 교체된 경우에 재무제표 재작성 가능성이 더욱 높은 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 감사인 교체유형에 따라 재무제표 재작성 가능성이 차별적으로 나타날 수 있다는 시사점을 제공하였다는 데에 의의가 있다. 또한, 감사인 교체유형뿐만 아니라 감사인 교체에 따라 수반되는 산업전문성의 증감 역시 재무제표 재작성 가능성에 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 보였다는 데에 추가적인 의의가 있다. 이러한 본 연구의 연구결과는 정책당국이 주기적지정제에 따라 감사인을 지정함에 있어서, 감사품질 제고라는 제도의 도입 취지를 달성하기 위해 감사인 교체유형과 산업전문성 변화방향을 모두 고려해야함을 제시하고 있다는 데에 정책적 시사점을 가진다.

영어초록

This study analyzes the effect of auditor change type on financial statement restatement. Specifically, this study investigates if the possibility of financial statement restatement differs according to the auditor change type in terms of auditor size and industry expertise. If the replaced auditors find any errors that were not found in the previous financial statements audited by previous auditor or find issues which may have different views on accounting treatment, it is highly likely to revise the previous financial statements. In other word, a newly appointed auditor can actively detect and correct errors in the previous financial statements by conducting audits more rigorously, and due to the nature of IFRS, there may be cases in which accounting entities may judge a single economic event differently when presenting accounting principles and applying them in practice. Therefore, if the auditor is replaced, the audited entity may revise the previous financial statements without adequate consultation with the former auditor by accepting the argument of the new auditor, which presents a different opinion than the former auditor. This study analyzed 10,267 firm-year samples listed on KOSPI and KODAQ from 2014 to 2019, and examined whether the probability of financial statements restatement changes depending on the type of auditor designation, and change in industry expertise after auditor designation using financial statement restatement as a dependent variable and type of auditor designation as a explanatory variable. Lastly, after the implementation of the auditing practice guidelines that mandated communication with the previous auditor to restate previous financial statements in 2017, this study analyzed whether the increased possibility of financial statements restatement due to the replacement of auditors is reduced by the strengthened audit procedure. Analysis was performed by dividing the sample into Non-Big4 → Big4, Big4 → Big4, Non-Big4 → Non-Big4, Big4 → Non-Big4 according to the replacement type in terms of the auditor size. In addition, in terms of change in industry expertise, this study measured industry expertise by market share estimated based on total sales and total assets referring to previous literature(Balsam et al. 2003; Neal and Riley 2004; Choi and Bae 2014; Bae et al. 2019). As a result, in terms of change in auditor size, we find that every type of auditor change(Non-Big4 → Big4, Big4 → Big4, Non-Big4 → Non-Big4, Big4 → Non-Big4) exhibited a significant positive(+) relationship with the financial statement restatement. However, the probability of restatement was highest in the case of auditor change to Big4 from Non-Big4, and it is interpreted as the result of putting more audit efforts because Big4 auditors have incentives to maintain higher audit quality by reacting more sensitively to reputation and litigation risks compared to Non-Big4 auditors. Second, in the sample in which the auditor’s industry expertise increased due to the auditor change, the probability of financial statement restatement was higher compared to the sample whose industry expertise was decreased after auditor designation. This result is consistent with previous literature(Balsam et al. 2003; Dunn and Mayhew 2004; Romanus et al. 2008) that presents auditors with higher industry expertise improve audit quality. Third, we expected that the possibility of financial statement restatement will be reduced due to the strengthened audit procedures, such as mandatory three-party communication with the previous auditor and the audited company in order for newly replaced auditors to restate previous financial statements. However, the result presented statistically insignificant coefficient as a result of the analysis, which is interpreted to be due to the absence or insufficiency of the supervisory authority’s action in case of a violation of the accounting audit practice guidelines. This study provides implication that the likelihood of financial statement restatement may differ depending on the auditor type after auditor designation in a situation where many auditors are replaced according to the newly adopted periodic auditor designation system after the revision of the External Audit Act in 2018. Additionally, this study also has implication that change in industry expertise after auditor designation can also affect the likelihood of financial statement restatement. The results of this study have implication that when designating auditors according to the periodic designation system, policy authorities should consider both the type of auditor replacement and the direction of change in industry expertise. Moreover, after enacting a new system according to practical or policy necessity, such as the establishment of practice guidelines for auditing, it provides implications for supervisory policy that the effectiveness of policies can be increased when measures to induce compliance with them are also considered.

참고자료

· 없음