민법 제1023조의 상속재산관리인과 고려기간 중의 상속인의 지위에 관한 다른 접근 －대상판결: 대법원 2021. 9. 15. 선고 2021다224446 판결－

This article examines the legal validity of a provisional seizure imposed by an inheritance creditor against the inheritors during the deliberation period －the time before inheritors formally accept or renounce the inheritance. The central issue is whether such a seizure remains effective when the inheritors subsequently renounce the inheritance. The Supreme Court of Korea upheld the seizure’s validity, reasoning that inheritors, until their renunciation is formally accepted by the family court, temporarily and automatically acquire the inheritee’s estate and are obliged to manage it. The Court held that acts performed during this interim period － including provisional seizures － remain valid and unaffected by later renunciation. This article challenges the prevailing doctrinal view that characterizes a court-appointed administrator for inherited property under article 1023 of the Korean Civil Code as a legal representative of eventual inheritors. Such a perspective is flawed because it assumes the necessary existence of an inheritor as a principal and conflates the distinct procedural roles of legal representation and litigation management. As an alternative, this article proposes reconceptualizing an administrator for inherited property as a statutory trustee of the inherited estate. It further argues that the inherited estate should be understood as a separate patrimony, not merged with the inheritor’s personal assets, during the deliberation period. Drawing parallels with bankruptcy trustees and debtors-in-possession in insolvency proceedings, it contends that both an administrator and inheritors function as legal trustees whose acts － whether substantive or procedural － bind the estate itself. By advancing this framework, the article supports the Supreme Court’s reasoning and contributes a new theoretical foundation for understanding legal relations concerning inheritance under Korean Civil Code.