감사법인 감사품질지표와 공시에 대한 회계제도 비교연구

Large number of academic studies and audit practice literature have covered audit quality proxies which would indicate audit quality at the audit firm-level or the engagement level. Recently, such audit quality proxies are referred to audit firm-level quality indicators constructed from the results of the regulator’s quality control investigation on audit firm’s quality control systems as well as traditional measures such as Big 4 auditors, industry expertise, (excess) audit hours or audit fees. For a better representation of audit firm’s audit quality, mandatory disclosure of audit firm’s information (i.e. audit firm’s transparency report) is introduced or in consideration in many countries. For example, the European Union (EU) implemented mandatory disclosure of audit firm’s transparency reports in 2006. Many other countries' regulators such as the PCAOB in the United States and the international organization of the regulators such as the International Organization of Securities Commission (IOSCO) are discussing implementation plans of audit firm’s transparency reports. In addition, audit firm governance, including its conceptual definition, structuring and monitoring, are also in discussion in many countries. The U.K. regulator (the Financial Reporting Council) has already established the audit firm governance code. Transparency report regulation of the U.K. requires the audit firms to disclose information of their audit firm governance matters as well as the audit firm's audit quality indicators. In the same line with this global trends, even earlier than those in some senses, Korean regulation implemented mandatory disclosure of the audit firms’ annual reports in accordance with the External Audit Law in Korea revised in 2003, which would be comparable to the transparency reports discussed or implemented in the foreign countries. This study is to compare the regulations and actual cases of audit firm’s annual report disclosure in Korea with those of the audit firm’s transparency reports in foreign countries in the context of the relevant regulations, the conceptual definitions of audit quality indicators, and actual disclosure cases of the reports. Based on these, we identify similarity and differences in the regulation and disclosure cases so as to find regulatory implications on Korean regulations with respect to the audit firm’s annual report disclosures. We found that several similarity and differences which might be considered in the future revision of Korean disclosure requirements of audit firm’s annual reports. These are the matters of disclosure contents, development of conceptual frameworks for audit quality indicators, practical consideration for consistency and comparability of disclosure items. Specifically, several recommendations for Korean regulation are made. First, audit quality indicators are to be carefully selected and disclosed so as to appropriately indicate audit firm's audit quality. Second, terminology (e.g. annual report vs. transparency report; accounting firm vs. audit firm) needs to be reconsidered. Third, audit firm governance audit quality definition (and related audit quality indicators) would another topic to be contemplated in advance. Fourth, formats and presentation types of audit firm information need to be reshaped for comparativeness and consistency. Fifth, certification by audit firm's CEO and quality control partner and external audits of financial statements need to be introduced to enhance credibility of disclosure. Finally, the unexpected consequences from introduction of new regulation systems are to be carefully reviewed and considered in advance and monitored. It is the primary contribution of this study that we found several regulatory implications with respect to audit firm’s transparency report and disclosure of audit quality indicators in Korea by comparing Korean regulations and disclosure cases with those in the foreign countries.