부동산거래신고제도의 쟁점

김학환(Kim, Hack Hwan) 韓國不動産學會 2009 不動産學報 Vol.39 No.-

1. CONTENTS (1) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES It is generally agreed that the Report on transaction of Real Estate is contributed to improve transparency in real estate markets. Already this Report has been evoked much debate during legislation procedure. This Article reviews controversial questions of the Report on transaction of Real Estate (2) RESEARCH METHOD For the research, I have consulted examining reports, legislation and judicial materials rather than textbook. (3) RESEARCH FINDINGS In Korea, a broker who has prepared and delivered a contract document, shall report the real transaction price of such real estate, etc. and other matters prescribed by the Presidental Decree the head of Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the location of the real estate subject to purchase and sale(in the case of the purchase and sale contract on the title, referring to the real estate subject to such title) within 60days from the date when the contract has been concluded(from BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REPORT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION ACT art. § 27). It is generally agreed that the Report on transaction of Real Estate is contributed to improve transparency in real estate markets. One of the most controversial questions is an unconstituionality issue. But the Constituional Court of Korea has decided constitutionality of this Report. 2. RESULTS Neverthless, it has been argued that this Report System should not be accepted to the brokerage industry. Besides on unconstituionality issue, there are some debates on dualizing system according to the transaction report under art. § 80-2 of the Housing Act, verifying method to a inaccurate price reported etc;, detaching this Report system from the BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REPORT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION ACT, simplifying to report procedure, practical using reported matters, altering of real estate registration, and offering incentive for real estate brokers. I argue that the reason given by the Constitutional Court for constitutional adjunction is questioned in public. I also argue that the difference of the reporting period between real transaction from BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND REPORT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION ACT and housing transaction from Housing Act is not appropriate.

행정법상 신고의 유형과 해석기준에 관한 소고

조만형 한국공법학회 2010 公法硏究 Vol.39 No.2

Report as an act of public law of a private person has been used as a means of reducing regulations as an alternative to a permit system, which took too much control of free business activities of individuals. Due to various interpretations of the term report under individual administrative laws, however, the implication of reducing regulations has been weakening and limiting free activities of citizens in the name of a report, being deformed permit system or registration system. This has caused constant disputes between authorities of administration which want to regulate free business activities of individuals and individuals who want to work freely from administrative agencies. As a result, there is a need for a study which provides a legal ground that helps ensure legal stability of lives of citizens and guarantee business activities free from administrative regulations by standardizing types of reports under individual administrative laws and interpreting them under the standards and thereby clarifying legal effect, and this study responds to such a need. Reports under individual administrative laws consist of reports requiring acceptance, self-satisfying reports requiring no acceptance, and fact-confirming (or information-providing) reports, depending on the degree of regulation. Reports requiring acceptance have the same effect as relieved permit system or registration system, self-satisfying reports are those requiring no acceptance as defined in Article 40 of the Administrative Procedure Law. The legal effect or the degree of regulation varies among types of reports from a theoretical perspective, which means that the type of a report should be determined in the course of interpretation under the positive law. Since the key to the interpretation of a report lies in determining whether an acceptance is required or not, it is necessary to figure out how to interpret a report by dividing reports under the positive law into two categories. To tell the difference among these, it is critical to extract factors determining acceptance under the positive law and consider these factors from a collective perspective and thereby interpret reports with different effects. As a phased-in comprehensive standard of interpretation to define the type of each report under the positive law, this method of interpreting is expected to secure the stability of legal lives of citizens, guarantee their freedom and rights and reduce disputes surrounding the interpretation of reports. 私人의 공법행위로서 신고는 개인의 자유로운 영업활동을 과도하게 규제해 오던 허가제에 대한 대안으로서 규제완화의 수단으로 활용되어 왔다. 그러나 개별행정법에 나타난 신고라는 용어에 대한 해석이 다양한 유형으로 나타남으로 인하여 규제완화의 의의를 퇴색하게 하고, 변형된 허가제 또는 등록제로 변질되어 신고라는 미명하에 국민의 자유로운 활동에 제약적인 요소로 작용하고 있다. 이로부터 개인의 자유로운 영업활동을 규제하려는 행정의 주체와 행정기관으로부터 자유로운 영업활동을 영위하려는 개인 간에 끊임없는 분쟁을 키워왔다. 이러한 법 현실에서 개별 행정법상에 나타난 신고의 유형을 정형화하여 해석하고 그에 따른 법적인 효력을 분명히 하여 국민생활의 법적인 안정을 기하고 행정규제로부터 자유로운 영업활동을 보장할 수 있는 데에 공여할 연구가 필요하다는 인식하에 본 연구가 이루어졌다. 개별행정법에 나타난 신고는 규제의 정도에 따라 수리를 요하는 신고와 수리를 요하지 않는 자기완결적 신고 그리고 사실파악형(또는 정보제공적) 신고로 3분하여 구분할 수 있다. 수리를 요하는 신고는 완화된 허가제 또는 등록제와 같은 효력을 갖는 것이며, 자기완결적 신고는 행정절차법 제40조에 규정된 신고와 같은 수리가 필요 없는 신고에 해당한다. 그리고 사실파악형 신고는 행정기관에 협조적 차원에서 법령에서 의무화하고 있지만 법적인 효력을 가져오지 않는 사실행위에 불과하다. 이러한 강학상의 신고 유형에 따라 그 법적 효력 또는 규제의 정도가 달라지는데, 이는 실정법에 나타난 신고라는 용어를 해석과정에서 어떠한 유형에 해당하는지를 판단하여야 한다. 신고를 해석하는 데에 있어서의 문제점은 수리를 요하는 신고인지 수리를 요하지 않는 신고인지를 구분하는 것이 법리의 핵심이므로 실정법에서 사용되고 있는 신고를 양자로 구분하여 해석하는 방법론을 모색하여야 한다. 수리를 요하지 않는 신고와 사실파악형 신고는 구분하는 데에 큰 문제점은 없다. 수리를 요하는지를 파악해야 하는 이들의 구별기준은 실정법에 나타난 수리를 결정하는 요소들을 추출하는 것이다. 본고에서 신고의 유형의 구별기준이 되는 수리여부를 결정할 수 있는 실정법상의 요소로서 들 수 있는 것들은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 법률상에 수리에 관한 명시적 규정이 있는지의 여부, 둘째, 신고와 등록을 동시에 대비시켜 규정해 놓고 있는 사항인지의 여부, 셋째, 법률 연혁상 등록제에서 신고제로 개정된 규정인지의 여부, 넷째, 신고행위의 효력시기에 관한 규정이 있는지의 여부, 다섯째, 시설요건에 관한 규정을 두고 시설의 설치신고를 요구하는 경우, 여섯째, 지위양수자의 신고규정, 일곱째, 수리의 요건으로서 형식적 요건 외에 실질적 심사규정을 두고 있는지의 여부, 여덟째, 행정벌 규정이 무신고 행위에 대한 제재인지 아니면 신고의무불이행을 제재하는 것인지의 여부 등. 실정법의 내용이 이들 요소들을 담고 있을 때 그 요소들을 종합적으로 판단하여 법적 효력을 달리하는 신고의 유형으로 해석하여야 한다. 이렇게 해석하는 것이 실정법에 나타난 신고의 유형을 파악하는 데에 있어서 단면적이고 종합적으로 파악할 수 있는 해석기준이 될 수 있어서 국민의 법률생활의 법적 안정성을 확보하여 자유와 권리를 보장함은 물론 해석에 있어서의 분쟁을 완화시키는...

거짓신고에 관한 법적 문제

서정범 ( Suh Jung-bum ) 한국경찰법학회 2019 경찰법연구 Vol.17 No.1

Ⅰ. Entering Today, the issue of false reporting(or fake emergency call) is a major hindrance to police operation, causing a huge waste of police force and creating a vacuum in social security. Therefore, it is necessary to find a systematic way to deal with the problems of false report which mark the starting point of this article. Below, I will discuss the question of finding efficient police countermeasures against false reports. Ⅱ. The traditional countermeasures of police against false reports It is true that Korean Police have been dealing with the problem of false reports through criminal and civil measures, but they have failed to function as an effective solution. The most typical police response to false reports is to hold the false reporters criminally liable. However, this approach had the problems and limitations. In the 2000s, a significant change was marked in the way police responded to false reports in that the police began to claim damage for torts from false reporters. However, there still exist following limitations and problems with this civil approach. Ⅲ. Seeking for New countermeasure of Police against False Reports - Police Law Measures With this article I point out the limitations of such criminal and civil measures to false reports. And I suggest an adoption of a paradigm of Police (Administrative) Law, in particular approaches based on Police Cost Law (Polizeikostenrecht in German) theory. The main point of the debate is whether police can charge the false reporter -a so-called ‘danger inducer’ who has Police Liability (Polizeiverantwortung) under the theory of Police Administrative Law. In addition, if unliable citizens are harmed by the danger-prevention measures taken by the police based on false reports, it is required to seek remedies for them, one of which is an compensation for loss to the victims. Ⅳ. Conclusion In order to root out the problem of false reporting and to properly deal with it when happens, it is imperative that the police have a legal basis of imposing police costs to false reporters and of demanding reimbursement for compensation which the police paid to unliable citizens. Above all, a public recognition that the police can charge false reporters for police costs should be established.

각 유형별 수사보고서의 증거능력에 관한 검토

조광훈 대검찰청 2015 형사법의 신동향 Vol.0 No.47

An investigation report is an investigation document recording the matters related to investigation actions. An investigation report does not have a law as its legal base; while there are several regulations and enforcement decrees related to an investigation report. There is no legal form for an investigation report; while it is required during the process of properly expressing investigation actions as a record. Dependent on who prepares an investigation report, there are an investigation report prepared by a judicial police officer and an investigation report prepared by a prosecutor. Dependent on the content, there are fact-reporting investigation report, valuating investigation report and an investigation report mixed of fact and valuation. The functions of an investigation report are; reporting function to an investigation supervisor, the function of opinion-suggesting of a person in charge of an investigation, the function of substantive truth-finding, the lubricating oil function within investigation documents and the function of warranting the optimization of investigation procedure and the legitimacy of it. The admissibility of evidence of an investigation report by each type is different in the following cases such as; the case in which the statement of a suspect or a testifier has been prepared as an investigation report, the case in which a verification protocol of an investigation agency has been prepared as an investigation report, the case in which a document with admissibility of evidence has been attached to an investigation report, the case in which the contents collected by an investigation agency has been summarized as an investigation report, the case in which the facts actually experienced by an investigation agency has been prepared an investigation report and the case in which an investigation report is a simple opinion expression of an investigative agency. The judicial precedents do not judge these investigation reports in uniform manner but judge it individually by each case. Suggestions for the admissibility of evidence enhancement of an investigation report are; preparation of an investigation report in accordance with a legal form and formal document preparation regulation, keeping objectivity, conciseness, clarity, integrity and naturalness, prohibiting the expression of a subjective opinion when attaching a document with an admissibility of evidence and preparation of an investigation report immediately after an investigation action. 수사보고서는 수사행위와 관련된 사항을 기록한 수사서류를 말한다. 수사보고서의법적근거는 법률에는 규정을 두고 있지 않고, 다만 몇 개의 규칙과 시행령에는 관련 규정을두고 있다. 수사보고서는 법정서식이 마련되어 있지 않아 수사행위를 적절하게 기록으로현출하는 과정에서 필요하다. 그 종류는 작성주체에 따라 사법경찰관리 작성의 수사보고서와 검사 작성의 수사보고서, 그리고 작성내용에 따라 사실 보고적 수사보고서, 가치판단의 수사보고서, 사실과 가치판단이 혼합된 수사보고서로 나눌 수 있다. 수사보고서는 수사 감독자에 대한 보고적 기능, 수사행위의 현출기능, 수사실무자의 의견제시 기능, 실체적 진실발견 기능, 수사서류의 윤활유 기능, 수사절차의 적정화 내지는적법성의 담보하는 기능이 있다. 각 유형별 수사보고서의 증거능력은 우선 피의자 또는참고인의 진술을 수사보고서로 작성한 경우, 수사기관이 사실상의 검증조서를 수사보고서로 작성한 경우, 당연히 증거능력이 있는 서류를 수사보고서에 첨부한 경우, 수사기관이 입수한 첨부자료의 내용들을 요약 ․ 정리한 후 그 내용을 수사보고서로 작성한경우, 수사기관이 직접 체험한 사실을 수사보고서로 작성한 경우, 수사기관의 단순한의사표시에 불과한 경우로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 판례는 이를 일률적으로 판단하지 않고각 사안별로 개별적으로 판단하고 있다. 수사보고서의 증거능력의 제고를 위한 개선방안으로는 법정서식과 공문서 작성 규정에 따른 작성, 객관성 ․ 간결성 ․ 명확성 ․ 일체성․ 자연성을 유지하고, 당연히 증거능력 있는 서류 첨부시 주관적 의사표시 기재를 금지하고, 수사행위를 행한 즉시 수사보고서를 작성하는 것이 필요하다.

행정기본법의 ‘수리를 요하는 신고’에 대한 고찰 -인허가의제를 수반하는 건축신고를 중심으로-

이효진 법제처 2022 법제 Vol.699 No.-

‘A report requesting acceptance’ has been recognized as academia and courts so far, but it has provided a basis for the effectiveness of the report in the "General Act on Public Administration" (hereinafter, "General Act"). The report was divided into 'A self-satisfying report' and 'A report requesting acceptance', and specific interpretation was required for each individual law, and the interpretation of the distinction criteria was divided. General Act legislatively resolved the problem of distinguishing reports by stipulating 'if a state expressively provisions that such report requirements acceptance' as 'A report requesting acceptance'. However, it is questionable whether solving the problem of distinguishing reports can be solved by legislation of the General Act. 'A report requesting acceptance' is a more relaxed form of regulation than permission, and its legal nature was discussed as 'Registration' and 'Permission' in that it is an intermediate form of regulation between permission and Self-satisfying reporting. The report is accompanied by a complicated distinction between ‘Permission’ and ‘Registration’, and requires interpretation of whether the relevant regulations are discretionary act or non-discretionary act. There is no phrase "report requirements acceptance" in the law, but the court may judge it as ‘A report requesting acceptance’ when the report is combined with ‘Deemed authorization or permission’. It is necessary to examine how the reporting of the General Act can be applied to individual laws, focusing on the relationship with Permission-Registration-Self-satisfying reporting. In particular, the report of the Building Act is originally Self-satisfying reporting, but it is combined with Deemed authorization or permission to be interpreted as ‘A report requesting acceptance’. In addition, the Building Act stipulates Permission and Self-satisfying reporting, and it is difficult to distinguish it from permission because reporting under the Building Act is discretionary act as ‘A report requesting acceptance’. Therefore, in the text, the legal nature of reporting the Building Act was examined, and based on Article 34 of General Act, a plan to improve reporting the Building Act was considered.

환경보고서의 유용성에 대한 이용자의 인식에 관한 설문조사연구

장지인,김장환,정혜정 대한경영학회 2003 大韓經營學會誌 Vol.16 No.7

This study will develop the way of working out the more useful environmental report based on the result of the survey which was carried out in the companies currently publishing the report(publisher) and stakeholder(report user). At present, the number of domestic company which publishers the environmental report is quite few, however, its number will be expected to reach high in near future in the light of its importance. In the survey of usefulness of those environmental reports, 24 out of 25 report publishers and 18 out of 22 report users answered "useful". However, both of publishers and users pointed out the various points at issue of their points of views when they wrote and used the reports. First of all, the publishers usually make out the environmental reports based on the guideline out of the Ministry of Environment which is official recognized standard to help the publishers the consistency of the report and easiness of making out. However, the publishers also indicate controversial points of impeding the publisher's creativity due to its too much generalization. The users of those environmental reports present the problems of the impossibility of making comparison between entities due to the difficulties of the substance of the report, credibility of its objectivity and confidence, and lack of unified formation of report. The result of this survey is expected to be good reference for the development of the environmental report.

CARE 지침에 따른 대한한의학회지의 증례보고에 대한 질 평가

최성열(Sung Youl Choi) 대한한의학회 2020 대한한의학회지 Vol.41 No.2

「행정기본법」에 따른 자기완결적 신고와 수리를 요하는 신고의 재검토

정관선,박균성 법조협회 2022 法曹 Vol.71 No.3

‘A report requiring acceptance’ emerged as a new type of regulation to relax regulation, and it is positioned between permission and a report. Both academia and courts set a report requiring acceptance from a self-satisfying report(a report as an original meaning) and legal theories were sharply opposed regarding the distinction between them. On 23 March 2021 was enacted ‘General Act on Public Administration’(hereinafter, ‘General Act’), which stipulates the principles of enforcement and basic matters regarding administrative legislation. Article 34 of the General Act reads that ‘a report requiring acceptance’ is the one in a case where a statute expressly provides that such report requires acceptance excluding cases where acceptance is provided as an internal affairs process of an administrative agency. The purpose of the article is to have the individual act specify the need for acceptance in the case of a report that requires acceptance in consideration of the substantive nature of the reports stipulated in various ways in different acts. As the purpose of the article is premised on clearly defining the nature of the report under an act, this paper reviews the criteria to distinguish reports requiring acceptance from self-satisfying reports viet interpretation theories, on the one hand, and discusses the legislative standards to set reports requiring acceptance apart from self-satisfying reports in the light of the substance and nature of reports requiring acceptance in each act, on the other hand. Clear-cut interpretation standards is required to reason whether an act clearly states the need of acceptance of a report. This paper suggests a way to provide phrases such as ‘acceptance is in need’, ‘... is the report that requires acceptance’, or ‘... shall be accepted for it to take effect.’ The legislative standards for self-satisfying reports and reports requiring acceptance, furthermore, need be based on whether substantive review is essential when revising or newly drafting individual reporting regulations. When a substantive review is necessary for matters that may affect people’s life and safety, or matters related to business that require professional qualifications and etc., there should be no provision for deeming reports to be accepted, however. The General Act turned the matter of distinction between a self-satisfying report and a report requiring acceptance into a matter of legislative standards. When the legislative intent to view as a report requiring acceptance is still ambiguous or when the legislation does not conform to the nature of the substantive acceptance, however, based on the nature of the report requirements and the review for the requirements, according to the conventional theories, a report with only a formal requirement is considered as a self-satisfying report in principle, and when both the formal and substantive requirements are reporting requirements but only a formal review of the substantive requirements is possible, it is regarded as a self-satisfying report, and in cases where it is reasonable to decide whether to acceptance or not after a substantive examination, it shall be regarded as a report requiring acceptance. 규제완화를 위해 허가와 신고(본래 의미의 신고) 사이에 수리를 요하는 신고라는 새로운 형태의 규제가 등장한 이래 본래의 신고(자기완결적 신고)와 수리를 요하는 신고의 구별을 학설과 판례가 인정함으로써 수리를 요하는 신고와 자기완결적 신고의 구별에 관하여 해석론이 첨예하게 대립하고 있었다. 2021년 3월 23일행정법 분야의 집행 원칙과 기본사항을 규정한 「행정기본법」」을 제정하였다. 신고에 있어서도 마찬가지로 개별법만으로는 명확하지 않았던 것을 「행정기본법」 제34조를 통해 행정기관의 내부 업무 처리 절차로서 수리를 규정한 경우를 제외하고 법률에 신고의 수리가 필요하다고 명시되어 있는 경우를 수리를 요하는 신고로 규정하였다. 동 규정의 입법취지는 개별법상 다양하게 규정되어 있는 신고를 그 실질적 성격을 고려하여 수리를 요하는 신고의 경우 수리가 필요하다는 내용을 개별법으로 명시하도록 하는 것이다. 「행정기본법」 제34조의 입법취지가 개별법상 신고의 성격을 명확하게 규정하는 것을 전제함에 따라, 본 논문은 한편으로는 해석론으로 자기완결적 신고와 수리를 요하는 신고의 구별기준을 재검토하고, 다른 한편으로 개별법령에서 수리를 요하는 신고의 본질이나 성질을 고려하여 자기완결적 신고와 수리를 요하는 신고를 구별하여 규정하는 방식에 대한 입법기준에 관하여 논의하였다. 법률에 신고의 수리가 필요하다고 명시하였는지 여부를 판단하기 위한 해석기준을 보다 명확하게 할 필요가 있다. 예를 들어 ‘수리가 필요하다’, ‘수리를 요하는 신고다’, 또는 ‘수리되어야 효력이 발생한다’와 같은 문언을 규정하는 방안을 제시하였다. 한편, 개별 신고규정을 정비하거나 새로 입안할 때에 자기완결적 신고와 수리를 요하는 신고의 입법기준은 실질 심사가 필요한지 여부를 기준으로 하여야 할 것이다. 그리고 신고 수리 간주 규정을 둘 때에는 국민의 생명이나 안전 등에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 사항이나 전문자격에 따른 영업에 관한 사항 등 실질적인 심사가 필요한 경우에는 신고 수리간주 규정을 두지 않도록 하여야 한다. 「행정기본법」이 제정됨에 따라 자기완결적 신고와 수리를 요하는 신고의 구별이 입법기준의 문제로 옮겨 왔지만 여전히 수리를 요하는 신고로 보려는 입법의사가 애매한 경우, 또는 입법이 실질적인 수리의 성격에 부합하지 않는 경우에는 종래의 해석론에 따라 신고요건의 성질 및 신고요건에 대한 심사방식을 기준으로 신고요건이 형식적 요건만인 신고는 원칙상 자기완결적 신고로 보고, 형식적 요건뿐만 아니라 실체적 요건이 신고요건이지만, 실체적 요건에 대해 형식적 심사만 가능한 경우에는 자기완결적 신고로, 실질적 심사를 거쳐 수리 여부를 결정하는 것이 타당한 경우에는 수리를 요하는 신고로 보아야 한다.

사업보고서 가독성과 경영자 잠정실적공시 간의 관계

김현정,이승재 한국회계학회 2022 회계저널 Vol.31 No.4

This paper investigates how the readability of annual reports affects the manager’s timely disclosure decisions. The manager’s intention would be reflected in the linguistic characteristics of the annual reports since they are prepared according to a regulated format(Lee 2017). So, it is important to understand the language characteristics which are contained in the reports. Information in poorly readable annual reports is less likely to be reflected in stock prices as investors might less use the information due to high information processing costs. According to previous studies on annual report readability, as the earnings quality is lower, managers with an opportunistic purpose disclose unreadable annual reports(Jung et al. 2018). According to the obfuscation theory, managers would control the readability of annual reports to make unfavorable accounting information slowly reflected in the stock price. Managers who disclose unreadable annual reports will disclose preliminary earnings to facilitate the reflection of favorable information on price. Opportunistic managers can use disclosure of preliminary earnings to offset negative accounting information contained in annual reports. Disclosure of preliminary earnings serves to assist market investors in their decision-making by providing performance information before the publication of annual reports(Sohn and Lee 2005; Baik et al. 2012). However, since the preliminary earnings are subject to change in the future with the settlement of accounts not finalized, there would be a room for misuse depending on the opportunistic purpose of management(Lee et al. 2011; Kim 2018b). According to the empirical analysis results, it can be seen that managers establish a disclosure strategy that uses the accuracy of preliminary earnings or timing of announcing them to highlight positive news and hide negative news(Kim 2018a; Kim 2018b). Managers who disclose unreadable annual reports because they want information on future performance to be reflected in the market price slowly, would hide actual performance through non regular disclosures and send positive signals to the market by disclosing optimistic information. Therefore, this study analyzes the relation between the readability of annual reports and the disclosure of preliminary earnings to verify whether the manager’s intention to reduce the timeliness of negative accounting information through annual reports is reflected in disclosure of preliminary earnings. Proxying for annual report readability using the Flesch ease index, Fog index, and the length of the reports which are commonly used in accounting literature, we found that managers who disclose unreadable annual reports are more likely to disclose preliminary earnings. It is interpreted that managers slow down the rate at which negative accounting information is reflected in stock prices by disclosing unreadable annual reports, and make preliminary earnings disclosures to deliver a positive signal to the market. Second, it was found that firms disclosing annual reports with low readability have a large error in the disclosure of preliminary earnings, and the bias of disclosed preliminary earnings is also large. In particular, the relation between the readability of the annual report and the bias of preliminary earnings is strong in the sample that discloses upward biased preliminary earnings. These results mean that managers who disclose unreadable annual reports are likely to disclose preliminary earnings opportunistically, and the managers’ intention to hide negative accounting information through optimistic performance disclosure is reflected in the disclosure strategy. This study is meaningful in that it verified that the linguistic characteristics of annual reports are related to non regular disclosure strategies by expanding previous studies that the qualitative attributes of accounting information affect the linguistic characteristics of a... 본 연구는 우리말 사업보고서의 가독성이 잠정실적공시 가능성과 공시 오차 및 편의에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. 난독화 이론에 따르면, 경영자는 부정적인 회계정보가 주가에 반영되는 속도를 늦추기 위해 사업보고서의 가독성을 조절할 수 있다. 가독성이 낮은 사업보고서를 공시하는 경영자는 실적에 대한 예상정보가 시장에 반영되는 것을 촉진하거나 늦추기 위해 잠정실적을 공시할 것이다. 사업보고서의 전체 길이, 단어 길이, 문장 길이, 단어의 복잡성 등을 이용하여 세 가지 방법으로 사업보고서의 가독성을 측정 및 분석한 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 사업보고서의 가독성이 낮을수록 경영자가 잠정실적공시를 할 가능성이 높아졌다. 이와 더불어 사업보고서의 가독성이 낮을수록 잠정실적공시의 오차가 증가하였으며, 이러한 상관관계는 낙관적으로 성과를 예측한 표본에서 더욱 두드러지는 것을 확인하였다. 이는 가독성이 낮은 사업보고서를 공시하는 경영자는 기회주의적으로 잠정실적공시를 수행할 가능성이 존재하며, 낙관적인 실적 공시를 통해 부정적 성과를 숨기고자 하는 경영자의 의도가 공시전략에 반영되는 것을 의미한다. 본 연구는 언어적 특성이 회계정보의 질적 속성과 관련되어 있다는 선행연구를 확장하여 경영자는 회계정보의 적시성을 조절하기 위해 우리말 사업보고 서의 언어적 특성을 활용한다는 실증증거를 제시했다는 데에 의의가 있다.

감사보고서 발행시차와 재무보고품질 사이의 관계

노희천,임규한,전영준 한국세무학회 2012 세무와 회계저널 Vol.13 No.3

최근 수년간 상장법인 중 일부기업이 공시시한을 위반하여 감사보고서를 제출함으로써 투자자들에게 재무정보를 적시에 제공하지 못하였으며, 재무제표 신뢰성 및 상장폐지에 대한 우려로 해당기업의 주가가 하락하는 사례가 반복적으로 발생하였다. 이러한 현상은 경영진과 감사인간의 의견불일치로 인한 경우가 대부분일 것으로 추정되고 있으며 투자자들에게 혼란을 야기하고 있다. 따라서 감사보고서를 공시하는 시점에 대한 정보 및 감사업무를 사실상 완료한 날인 감사보고서일에대한 정보 즉 감사보고서 발행시차가 재무제표에 미치는 정보효과에 대하여 살펴보는 것은 투자자들에게 유용할 것으로 판단된다. 감사보고와 관련해서는 감사보고서일과 결산일간의 시차인 감사시차에 영향을 미치는 요인들을찾기 위한 많은 선행연구들이 있었다. 한편 감사보고서일과 감사보고서 공시일간에는 시차가 존재하는데 이는 감사현장 철수일 이후 감사보고서를 발행하기 위하여 추가적인 감사증거의 확보, 감사조서의 작성 및 내부심리 등의 추가적인 감사노력이 필요하기 때문이다. 이러한 감사인의 추가감사시간이 일정수준 발생하는 것은 필수적인 것이나, 적정수준을 초과하는 경우 이익공시의 적시성을 훼손하게 된다. 본 연구에서는 감사보고서 제출공시가 의무화된 2003년부터 2010년까지 유가증권시장상장법인 및 코스닥시장상장법인을 대상으로 감사시차, 감사보고서 공시일을 기준으로한 감사시차 및 감사보고서 발행시차와 재량적 발생액과의 관계를 살펴보았다. 실증분석 결과, 단일변량분석과 다변량 회귀분석에서 모두 감사보고서 발행시차와 재량적 발생액은 통계적으로 유의한 양(+)의 관계를 보였다. 즉, 감사의견 형성을 위해 충분한 감사증거를 확보한 이후의 감사보고서 공시지연은 경영진과의 의견불일치로 인한 보고지연의 문제로 해석할 수있으며, 경영진과의 의견불일치 해소를 위해 감사인이 추가적인 감사노력을 투입하더라도 경영자의 재량적 이익조정을 감소시키지 못함을 확인하였다. 이러한 결과는 감사보고서를 지연제출하는기업의 경우 경영자와 감사인간의 의견불일치 정도가 중요한 수준에 있으나 이를 해소하기 위한감사인의 노력이 재량적 이익조정행위에 대하여는 본질적인 한계를 가지고 있어 재량적 발생액을감소시키지 못함을 보여준다. 이는 우리나라 회계감사인들이 회계이익의 불투명성의 증대와 이익조정가능성에 대하여 보수적인 판단기준을 적용하여 감사업무범위를 확대하거나 감사보고서 발행시 더 보수적으로 대응한다는것을 알 수 있으나 이러한 노력이 경영자의 재량적 이익조정행위를 완전하게 해소하지 못하고 있는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 따라서 재무제표 이용자들의 관점에서 볼 때 감사보고서 발행시차는 중요한 정보효과를 가지는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 특히 코스닥시장상장법인을 대상으로 한 분석에서 감사보고서 발행시차와 이익조정 사이에 대한분석결과가 더 강화된 양(+)의 관계를 보이고 있어 코스닥시장상장법인의 재무제표 이용시 보다더 주의를 기울일 필요가 있음을 나타내고 있다. 그리고 감사인 규모에 따른 추가 분석결과에서는감사인 규모에 따라 감사보고서 발행시차와 이익조정 사이의 분석결과가 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 감사인 규모에 따라 감사품질(audit quality)이 달라지는 지에 대하여 일관되 ... In recent years, the frequent, repeated cases have been shown where stock prices of some stock -listed companies have repetitiously dropped due to reliability in financial statements and investors' worries about being delisted, as a result of submitting audit report in breach of the posting public announcement and not disclosing timely financial information to investors. Such are presumed to be mostly due to the disagreements between the management and auditors, causing a confusion among investors. Accordingly, it is judged to inform usefulness for investors to study the information effect of audit report filing lag on financial statements, namely information difference between the dates of the audit report disclosure and the completed audit report. Regarding audit reporting, lots of prior researches have been performed to find out the factors affecting audit report lag, i.e. a time lag between audit report date and the closing day of the fiscal year. Another time lag exists between the dates of the audit report and the audit report disclosure because, in order to file the audit report after auditors' spot inspection, additional audit efforts are required for securing additional audit evidence, filing an audit report and deliberating internal mentality, etc. The auditors' additional audit time is understandably inevitable to some extent, but in case of exceeding the acceptable extension, the timeliness of official income disclosure might be damaged. This study investigated the relationship between the audit report lag and discretionary accruals and between audit report filing lag and discretionary accruals, targeting the stock-listed firms in KOSPI (Korea Composite Stock Price Index) and KOSDAQ(Korea Securities Dealers Automated Quotation) Market from 2003-the year of legally obligated submission & disclosure of the audit report-until 2010. As results of empirical analysis, the relationship between audit report filing lag and discretionary accruals showed a statistically significant positive in both univariate and multivariate regression analysis. In other words, the delay in public announcement of audit report after securing adequate proof for the formation of auditors' opinions can be interpreted as the reporting delay due to disagreements with the management;Concerning this, this study confirmed that an auditor failed to reduce management's discretionary earnings managements, despite an auditors' additional audit efforts for solving disagreements with the management. This study result shows that though the level of disagreements between auditors and the management which submits the audit report belatedly is in the significant level an auditors' effort failed to reduce the discretionary accruals owing to an intrinsic limit to the act of discretionary earnings management in solving this friction. From this perspective, this result reveals that the auditors in Korea are expanding their range of auditing or coping with more conservatively in filing audit reports by applying a conservative criterion to increase in the non-transparency of accounting profits and likelihood of earnings management, but it can be analyzed that such actual efforts fail to eliminate management's act of earnings management completely. Accordingly, from viewpoints of the users of financial statements,the audit report filing lag can be interpreted as an indicator of important information effects. In addition, such a result also shows more significant positive relations especially in the analysis of the listed corporations on KOSDAQ, which suggests investors need to be more cautious in considering such corporations' financial statements. Additionally, the additional analysis of the auditors' scale showed no difference between auditors' scale and audit quality. This analyzed result supports domestic researches which are showing inconsistent results on whether the audit quality depends on the auditors' scale, indicating that accounting inform...