Recently Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) reported an operating loss of 3 trillion won, shifting from an operating profit of 183 billion won a year earlier. This incident has triggered a debate on the appropriateness of company audits. The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) introduced the New and Revised Auditor``s Reporting Standards on March 2015 in order to enhance auditor reporting. Enhancing auditor reporting is viewed as critical to the perceived value of the financial statement audit and thus to the continued relevance of the auditing profession. IAASB explains that the new and revised Auditor Reporting Standards lay the foundation for the future of global auditor reporting and improved auditor communications. Among the new and revised Auditor Reporting Standards, the International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 701 deals with the auditor``s responsibility to communicate key audit matters (KAM) in the auditor``s report. The purpose of communicating KMA is to enhance the communicative value of the auditor``s report by providing greater transparency about the audit that was performed. Even though the main aim of KAM is providing greater transparency, it may cause the ambiguity of the nature and scope of the auditors`` legal responsibilities with respect to KAM. This article analyses the IAASB``s New and Revised Auditor Reporting Standards, expecially reporting KAM, and the legal liability concerns for auditors. This article argues that Korea needs to supplement the legal liabilities system of auditors especially to the third party that is inadequate before the implementation of the new ISA 701. First, the practical guidelines of the ISA 701 should be in detail for preventing ambiguity of criteria of duty of care. Second, The concept and the scope of those charged with governance should be clarified in the Korean legal system in order that the auditors can communicate the right institution for deciding KAM during auditing. Third, concerning the sensitive matters the auditors should not be liable because of the confidentiality obligation.