한국과 일본의 공인회계사 선발인원 관리방식: 최소선발예정인원 사전결정제도를 중심으로

A comparison between Korea and Japan regarding how to determine the number of new CPAs: Focused on the pre-determination system

한국은 공인회계사 선발인원을 관리하기 위해 최소선발예정인원을 정부가 사전에 결정하여 공표한다. 최근 정부는 최소선발예정인원을 증원하였는데, 이를 계기로 회계사업계와 학계에서 찬반논란이 계속되고 있다. 본 연구는 한국과 일본의 공인회계사 선발인원 관리방식을 알아보고 다음과 같은 시사점을 도출하였다. 첫째, 최소선발예정인원 사전결정제도는 정부가 선발인원을 사전에 임의로 결정한다는 점에서, 공인회계사 공급이 시장원리에 어긋나거나 때로는 시장교란을 초래할 위험이 있을 수 있다. 둘째, 정부는 높은 수준의 목표치를 맞추기 위해 선발인원을 결정해왔으므로, 지난 20년간 공인회계사 공급확대정책이 추진되었다고 할 수 있다. 정부의 당초 정책목표였던 선진국 수준으로 공인회계사 수 증대, 공인회계사의 일반기업 진출, 회계산업의 경쟁 유도 등을 분석한 결과, 현재 상당부분 달성된 것으로 나타났다. 반면 공인회계사시험 응시인원이 크게 감소하고 회계법인 인력구성에서 숙련된 회계사가 부족한 현상이 나타나, 공인회계사로 인재유입이 줄고 인재유출이 늘어났다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 공인회계사 공급확대정책을 계속할 것인지 타당성을 검토할 필요가 있어 보인다. 셋째, 일본은 공인회계사 선발인원을 사전에 결정하는 절차가 없고 대신 응시인원을 관리하고 있다. 응시인원 관리는 회계감사환경을 향상시킴으로써 인재유입을 유도하는 것이어서, 시장원리에 부합하여 회계산업 발전에 보다 크게 기여할 수 있을 것이다. 넷째, 일본은 회계전문인력을 회계감사인력과 기업회계전문가로 이원화하여 사고하고, 현행 공인회계사 자격제도를 일부 보완하여 두 종류의 인력을 모두 양성할 수 있는 절충안을 마련한 바 있다. 일본의 응시인원 관리와 회계전문인력 이원화는 한국도 참고해볼만하다. 한국의 공인회계사 선발인원 관리방식이 우수인재 유치와 회계산업 발전에 기여할 수 있도록 끊임없는 개선이 모색되기를 기대한다.

After the Financial Services Commission (hereafter “FSS”) decided to increase the minimum number of new CPAs (certified public accountants) in November 2018, the controversy about the proper number of new CPAs has heated up. A change in the number of successful candidates is quite important because it is not just a matter of supply and demand of new CPAs but it could affect the social conditions of CPAs, and furthermore audit quality and accounting transparency in Korea. Thus, a careful approach from the perspective of macro environments is needed. The purpose of this study is to examine the way to set the number of new CPAs over the past 30 years and discuss the impact of the mechanism on the accounting industry. We also look at how to determine the number of new CPAs in Japan which is quite similar to Korea in terms of the CPA qualification system. In Korea, the decision-making system has two characteristics. First, the number of new CPAs is set arbitrarily by the government in advance of the CPA examination. However, such a system could be risky because the pre-determined level might go against the conditions of the CPA labor market and even cause supply disturbance in the market. Second, the policy of expanding the supply of new CPAs has been promoted for the 20 years since 2001. As a result, the number of CPAs grew dramatically from about 5,000 to more than 20,000. Yet, the CPA exam takers has dropped remarkably from approximately 15,000 to 8,500. Among the CPAs in accounting companies, the share of those worked for more than 5 years has also been reduced to below the 40%, implying a hugh rush to other industries. The reduced inflow of potential candidates and increased outflows of seasoned CPAs may reflect the fall of the CPA s job satisfaction. We examine whether the expansion policy has enabled the government to achieve its initial goals such as the increase in the number of CPAs to the level of developed countries, active participation of CPAs in financial and manufacturing industries, and higher competition in accounting industry. First, the number of accounting professions per capita is 1,500 in Korea, which is comparable to the average of 1,563 in the U.S., France, Germany, and Japan. The number of CPAs working in non-accounting industries increased to 7,424, which is almost a third of the total number of CPAs. The competition in accounting industry became intensified so that revenues per CPA grew at 1.83%, which is lower than the growth rate of GDP per capita of 2.88%. In sum, the government goals seem to be almost fully met. Therefore, it is time to review whether it can be justified to keep the government-driven pre-determination system and the expansion policy, taking the risk and negative results mentioned above into consideration. In Japan, on the other hand, there has never been such a pre-determination system for the number of new CPAs. Instead, the Japanese government tries to increase the number of the CPA exam applicants because the new CPAs go up as the applicants rise, given a certain level of acceptance rate. This approach may fit better to the market conditions and have positive impacts on accounting industry since the CPA exam applicants increase naturally when accounting industry is improved. Previously, the Japanese government has the experience of deciding on arbitrarily high numbers of successful candidates in order to increase the number of CPAs. However, the policy was abolished in 3 years since the increased successful candidates failed to get field training opportunities, resulting in concerns about audit quality deterioration. Then, there was an effort to classify accounting experts into accounting auditors and corporate accounting experts as they play different roles and need different competences. A compromising system was also planned to foster both types of experts under one system. Japanese government tried to strengthen the qualification requirement for an audit, at th