http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
현영하,박용호 창원대학교 산업경제연구소 2001 産經硏究 Vol.18 No.-
The lease accounting includes the accounting of the lessor and lessee as well and in the way of the accounting treatment, there are the financing and operating lease in a large degree. There is a certain accounting principle that an accounting treatment method has to be selected in one of two in the place of the lessor or lessee. Even if there are some differences among nations, both the lessor and lessee in principle have to apply the coincided way of the lease accounting treatment. In other words, in case the lessor treats the accounting in the financing lease method, the lessee naturally has to apply the same way as lessor's and in case of the lessor's treating the accounting in the operating lease method, the lessee must apply the same way as the lessor's, too. Nonetheless, there will be the possibility that such a principle might not be abided by. That is why both the lessor and lessee intend to interpret the lease accounting principle in their own position without other party's restraint. In addition there is not any systematic, legally binding function that both parties in the tax authorities' or auditor position must check a mutually coincided accounting treatment. As a result of the above mentioned, in this study I researched, considering the viewpoint of the lessor and lessee concerned with reducing the tax, maximizing the net income, improving the financial ratio and avoiding tax investigation in relation with the classification of the lease transaction. On the basis of such motives, this study wishes to show any theoretical means and systematic imperfection that both the lessor and lessee can apply the lease classification standard differently. Then this study examines the actual conditions of asymmetry in classification of lease between the lessor and lessee as hypothesis. The test results support the following conclusions : 1.The lessor has not recognized whether the lessee has used the same method for the lease accounting treatment or not. 2.The lessee has not recognized whether the lessor has used the same method for the lease accounting treatment or not. 3.The tax authorities concerned have not recognized whether the lessee has used the same method for the lease accounting treatment or not. 4.The auditor has not recognized whether the lessee has used the same method for the lease accounting treatment or not. As I interpret the above conclusion, the lease asset can be depreciated doubly or not at all. And in addition to that, when depreciation should happen, it does not. However that situation can happen in the contrary position. This can bring about the result of the wrong statistic numerical value. Accordingly such an macro analysis should be considered in the viewpoint of drawing up the economic policies and establishing the accounting principle. And the main purpose of this study, that is to say, asymmetry of the lease accounting treatment between the lessor and lessee should be continued to study in the field of the accounting. In this study, direct asymmetry between the both parties couldn't be proved analyzed because the data on the individual lease transaction could be hardly collected. Consequently this asymmetry could not but be proved and analyzed in a roundabout way, but the degree on the asymmetry still remains questionable. Therefore, in the future studies, if a lease transaction can be proved and analyzed by a item when the situation that any remarkable lessee is abstracted and his consent can be obtained, this seems a very important subject for further research.
김능집,현영하 昌原大學校 産業經濟硏究所 1994 産經硏究 Vol.11 No.-
본 논문은 당기순이익을 고려하지 않은 상여금제도의 채택과 당기순이익을 고려한 상여금제도의 채택이 기업의 성과에 어떠한 상대적 효과를 초래했는지를 실증조사한다. 본 논문에서는 당기순이익을 고려한 상여금제도를 채택한 회사의 당기순이익을 고려하지 않은 상여금제도를 체택한 회사를 구별한다. 본 연구의 실증분석 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 주당순이익의 측정에 의한 것과 주가에 근거한 수익률로 본 기업의 성과 양자가 모두 PAP성과급 제도의 채택과 등정적으로 연관되어 있다. 둘째, PAP의 채택은 순이익의 평준화에 대한 측정의 한 형태인 기업이익의 가변성에는 아무론 영향을 미치지 않았다. 본 연구는 PAP를 채택하기 이전의 6년과 채택년도를 포함한 채택이후 6년을 검증 대상기간으로 채택하여 표본기업들의 두 그룹사이에 발견된 기업성과의 차이는 PAP성과급 제도 채택으로 인한 발생이라는 주장을 검증하였다. 실증연구의 표본선택은 미국증권시장에 상장된 58개의 회사이지만 실증연구의 결과가 시사하는 바는 한국을 포함한 다른 국가의 기업성과평가에도 유의될 수 있다고 생각한다. 즉, 성과급 제도의 내용이 한 기업의 성과에 뚜렷한 영향을 미친다는 실증은 어느 한 국가의 증권시장에 성장된 표본에만 국한된다고 할 수 없다. 동시에 본 논문이 부수적으로 시사하는 것이 있다면 본 논문의 성과급 제도의 내용처럼 다른 유사한 제도의 내용에 초점을 마출 때 또 다른 하나의 증권분석에 관한 실증적 연구과제를 도출할 수 있다는 일반적 논리와 본논문이 적용한 간단하면서도 바람직한 방법론에 관한 것이다. 투자론에서 다루는 증권분석과 회계학에서 다루는 전형적인 경영분석외, 또 다른 하나의 측면에서 기업성과조사의 가능성을 시사한다.