IFRS 도입과 재평가제도 : 자산재평가법, 기업회계기준서 제5호, K-IFRS 제1016호 비교 = IFRS and Asset Revaluation - Comparison of Asset Revaluation Act, K-GAAP 5, and K-IFRS 1016

국문 초록 (Abstract)

우리 기업들은 오랜 기간 동안 자산재평가법에 의한 재평가를 통하여 자본구조를 개선하여 왔다. 그러나 1997년 외환위기 이후 회계기준원 설립, 결합재무제표 도입, 그리고 회계기준 전면개정 등 일련의 회계개혁이 이루어 졌으며, 이 과정에서 IMF/IBRD는 선진국에도 존재하지 않고 회계이론에도 부합하지 않는다고 비판하면서 자산재평가제도를 폐지할 것을 요구하였다. 이에 정부는 2000년 12월 31일로 자산재평가제도를 폐지하였다.
그러나 최근 우리가 2011년부터 상장기업을 대상으로 도입하려고 하는 선진 회계기준인 IFRS에 이와 유사한 재평가제도가 존재한다. 더욱이 2009년초에는 IFRS 규정 중 금융위기 극복의 필요성으로 재평가의 조기 도입을 위하여 기준서 제5호를 개정하였다. 그러나 기준서 제5호는 IFRS 규정과 유사하기는 하나 상이한 규정도 있으며 이러한 상이한 규정은 우리가 이미 폐지한 자산재평가법과 유사하다. 따라서 본 연구는 자산재평가법, 2008년에 개정된 K-GAAP 5호, 그리고 K-IFRS 제1016호를 비교함으로써 자산재평가과 관련한 세 가지 기준을 회계이론 관점에서 논의하고자 하였다.
유형자산 재평가관련 회계기준이 실질적으로 2009년 초에 개정되었음에도 불구하고, 2008년 12월말결산 외감전체기업 15,743개 기업 중 15%에 해당하는 2,361개 기업이 재평가모형을 선택, 재평가를 실시한 것으로 나타났다. 재평가차액 발생현황을 기업유형별로 분석한 결과에서는 유형자산 재평가모형을 도입한 2,361개 기업 중 94.2%에 해당하는 2,224개 기업은 재평가이익만 발생하였으며, 5개 기업(0.2%)은 재평가손실만 발생하였다. 그러나 132개 기업(5.6%)은 재평가이익과 재평가손실이 동시에 발생하였다. 재평가모형 도입으로 유가증권 상장기업은 총자산이 18.6%, 코스닥 등록기업은 16.2%, 외부감사기업은 64.6% 증가한 것으로 나타나 금융위기 극복의 일환으로 도입한 재평가 제도가 기업 부채비율 감소에 크게 공헌하여 제도 도입의 정책목적을 달성하였음을 알 수 있었다.
세 기준을 비교분석한 결과 자산재평가법, K-GAAP 제5호, 그리고 K-IFRS 제1016호는 도입목적, 재평가 차손 인정여부, 재평가차액 회계처리방법, 재평가 후 장부금액 조정방법, 재평가 후 감가상각비 회계처리방법, 재평가잉여금 처리방법, 재평가주기 등 여러 가지 면에서 상호간에 유사점과 차이점이 존재하였으며 각 방법마다 장단점을 가지고 있음을 알 수 있었다. 따라서 선진제도로서 도입되는 IFRS와 K-GAAP 그리고 종전의 자산재평가법 상의 재평가제도의 유사점과 상이점을 회계이론관점에서 비교 고찰하는 것은 회계기준 제정기관 뿐만 아니라 기업과 투자자 등 다양한 회계정보이용자들에게 재산재평가의 의미를 이해하는 데 시사하는 바가 크다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The research aims to systematically arrange the trend of a debate about demand of improvement in accounting standards which were proposed to alleviate temporary difficulties that domestic firms had after international financial crisis, and examine revaluation of tangible assets which is widely applied by listed and unlisted companies.
To alleviate hardships of firms after financial crisis, revaluation of tangible assets was introduced in 2009 among IFRS. Compared to revaluation of previous Asset Revaluation Act and revaluation model of IFRS, revaluation of tangible assets has differences in many aspects. Therefore, this study examines and analyzes the actual condition of tangible asset revaluation by of K-GAAP 5, which was revised with priority. Also, this study aims to compare and review revaluation by Asset Revaluation Act, revaluation by of revised K-GAAP 5, and revaluation by K-IFRS 1016. Since revaluation is similar to revaluation by Asset Revaluation Act, which was abolished after IMF, it is a familiar accounting process to domestic firms. Because of such a reason, although asset revaluation accounting standard was revised in early 2009, among 15,743 of total sample companies, only 2,361 companies chose revaluation model and 15% of companies initiated revaluation. By looking at companies putting revaluation in effect by markets, among 629 of securities listed companies, 118 companies, which take 18.8%, were found to put asset revaluation in effect. In case of Kosdaq companies, 134 firms among 944 firms operated revaluation in respect of tangible assets. Also 2,097 of External Audit companies, which take 14.9%, operated revaluation in respect of tangible assets.
As a result of having a research on the present condition of revaluation of tangible assets by types of businesses, generally, businesses whose tangible assets take a high percentage of their total assets were highly probable to adopt revaluation model. Also, a research on the present condition of the amount of revaluation of firms which adopted tangible assets revaluation model shows that among 2,361 firms which adopted revaluation model, 2,361 firms (94.2%) generated revaluation gain while 5 firms (0.2%) generated only revaluation loss. However, 132 firms (5.6%) generated both revaluation gain and loss.
In addition, this research analyzes the distribution of revaluation surplus resulted from revaluation. Among firms which adopted revaluation model, the average of revaluation surplus of 118 of securities listed companies was 125,078 million Won, 134 of Kosdaq companies was 18,107 million Won, and 2,097 of External Audit Companies was 11,888 million Won. These show that the amount is quite huge. An examination in the rate of increase in total asset with adoption of revaluation model presents that securities companies' total asset increased by 18.6%, Kosdaq companies' total asset increased by 16.2%, and External Audit Companie's total asset increased by 64.6%. This shows that revaluation policy which was adopted as a mean to overcome the financial crisis highly contributed to decrease debt ratio and achieved the goal of the policy.
Asset Revaluation Act, K-GAAP, and revaluation on IFRS have similarities and dissimilarities in goal, targeted firms to revaluate, targeted assets to revaluate, etc. According to Asset Revaluation Act, valuation surplus is strictly restricted to be used besides as capitaliation etc. after being treated as capital surplus. In other words, the act prohibited revaluation surplus to be leaked by adapting to Asset Revaluation Act's object to maintain real capital through appropriate depreciation under inflation. On the other hand, K-GAAP5 K-IFRS 1016 prevent outflow of revaluation surplus by treating revaluation gains as other comprehensive income and revaluation losses as net earnings when they are revaluated. However, according to K-GAAP 5, when tangible assets are disposed, since other comprehensive income is treated as net earnings, they are being drained out from companies through income statements. On the other hand, under K-IFRS, when the tangible assets are disposed, they are alternated into retained earnings. When revaluation surplus is alternated into retained earnings, since the amount is not recognized as net earnings, IFRS outlines the revaluation surplus to be directly flow out of the firms without passing income statements.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 금융위기 극복을 위한 회계기준 개정
• Ⅲ. 자산재평가법, 기업회계기준서 제5호, K-IFRS 제1016호의 재평가 비교
• Ⅳ. 요약 및 결론