조직적 공모 하에서의 부실감사 인정 판결에 대한 연구

The study on the audit failure under the organized collusion - A lawsuit for Damages against F Company -

서울지방법원은 2013년 10월, 코스닥시장 등록기업 F사의 부실감사를 사유로 A회계법인에 140억원의 손해배상책임을 부과하였다. 해당 판결이 이례적으로 인식된 이유는 법원이 F사 임직원들의 조직적 공모를 인정하였음에도 불구하고 A회계법인의 부실감사를 인정하였다는 점이다. 판결 이후에 조직적 공모가 존재하는 상황에서 감사인이 적절한 감사절차를 수행할 수 있는지가 논란이 되었다. 그러나 회계감사기준에 따르면 조직적 공모 존재 자체가 감사상의 실패 책임을 면책하는 것이 아니라, 조직적 공모가 존재하는 상황에서 감사인이 적절한 감사절차를 수행하였는지 여부에 따라 감사상의 실패가 인정된다. 본 연구는 해당 소송의 판결문을 근거로 법원의 판결 근거를 검토하여 판결의 적절성에 대해 판단하고자 한다. 법원이 제시한 6가지의 판결 근거를 검토한 결과, 대부분의 판결 근거는 일반적인 수준에서 납득할 수 있는 것으로 판단된다. 특히 F사의 주요 거래처인 S전자와 일본 L사에 대한 거래의 실재성을 직접 조회하지 않은 점이 A회계법인이 부실감사를 인정받은 가장 중요한 근거로 작용한 것으로 판단된다. A회계법인의 행위는 가장 기본적인 감사절차를 지키지 않은 것으로 판단되며, 조직적 공모 여부와 상관없이 부실감사가 인정된 계기로 판단된다. 이번 판결은 피감사기업의 조직적 공모가 있 더라도 외부감사인이 기본적인 감사절차를 수행하지 않았다면 부실감사가 인정될 수 있다는 점에 의미가 있으며, 실무적으로 기본적인 감사절차의 중요성을 다시 인식하는 계기로 작용할 것이다.

This study reviewed a lawsuit for damages against an auditor who have audited F company. Stockholders of the F company filed a civil action against the auditor of the F company by the reason of the audit failure in 2012. The judge decided the auditor have to give 14 billions to stockholders of the F company because of the audit failure in the court. This decision was unusual since the judge admitted F company had concealed its true performance through collusion with executives and staff members, nevertheless decided the auditor had done the audit failure. After the judge decided, there is an controversy over whether auditors can perform audit procedures under the collusion with executives and staff members of the client. According to the Korea Audit Standards(bellow KASs), the audit failure is accepted in these cases which are ① a failure to obtain reasonable assurances, ② inadequate planning, performance or judgement, ③ the absence of professional competence and due case, ④ a failure to comply with KASs. Accordingly, the organized collusion with executives and staff members is not crucial to decide the audit failure, and the key of decision is whether the audit was properly planned and performed in accordance with KASs under the collusion with executives and staff members. We reviewed the sentencing of this case and evaluated whether the decision is proper or not. There are 6 reasons for the audit failure in the sentencing, the auditor had not confirmed ① trades without tax invoices, ② the substance of receivables from the S company, ③ the substance of receivables from the L company, ④ trades with excessive pre-payments, ⑤ income certificates of completion of report, and ⑥ an asset not yet arrived. We reviewed and evaluated the sentencing in this study. Among reasons the judge suggested, We thought the most decisive clue to decide the audit failure was that the auditor has not confirmed the substance of receivables the S company and the L company. The auditor has not checked receivables from the S company and the L company directly after initial audit engagement, nevertheless they has issued audit opinions as clean under they have not obtained reasonable assurance to the substance of receivables. The auditor has sent confirmation letters to check receivables from the S company and the L company though the F company which is audited, but the F company has been deceiving the auditor as if confirmation letter was arrived properly. However, the judge decided the audit failure by the reason of that the auditor could check the substance of receivables by confirming their actual addresses and sending the confirmation letter directly, but did not.