Through this thesis, the psychological meaning of the Korean folktale 'the servant who ruined the master's house' was examined. The opposition between the master and the servant is a universal matter of the human psychology. It can be seen as a conflict between the hardened existing collective consciousness and the new consciousness to compensate for and renew it. From different angles, it has become the opposition between man's spiritual and instinctive aspects, between the conscious and the unconscious, or between the ego and the shadow. In the folktale, the master tries several times to get rid of the youngest servant, but the servant uses tricks and wits to steal food, a horse, the youngest sister, and all money from the master, and finally, take his life. It ends with the marriage of the youngest sister and the servant. Enantiodromia, in which the master dies, and the servant becomes the new master, can be seen that the old collective consciousness is destroyed, and the new consciousness that has risen from the collective unconscious takes the dominant position. In an individual's psychological situation, it can be seen that the existing attitude of the ego is dissolved and transformed into a new attitude. In the middle of the story, the servant marries the youngest sister by exploiting naive people to rewrite the back letter written by the master to kill him. This aspect can be understood negatively in the moral concept of collective consciousness, but it can also be seen as a process of integrating mental elements that have been ignored in the collective consciousness of the Joseon Dynasty, symbolized by a woman, a honey seller, and a hungry Buddhist monk. The new consciousness, represented by the servant, has the characteristics of a trickster that is not bound by the existing frame, so it can encompass the psychological elements that have been ignored in the collective consciousness. Such element may represent compensation or an alternative to the collective consciousness in the late Joseon Dynasty. The master puts the servant in a leather bag and hangs it on a tree to kill the servant. However, the servant deceives a blind man; he opened his eyes while hanged. Instead of the servant, the blind man dies, and the servant is freed. As the problem of the conflict between master and servant is finally entrusted to the whole spirit (Self) symbolized by a tree, the blind man gets removed. It can be understood as an intention of the Self to distinguish and purify the elements of recklessness, stupidity, and greed included in the trickster. Through these processes, the servant, which symbolizes a new change in collective consciousness or a new attitude of ego, solves the existing problems and takes the place of the master. While listening to the cunning servant's performance, the audience feels a sense of joy and liberation. At the same time, in the part where the blind man and the master's family die instead and the servant becomes the master, they experience feelings of fear and concern about the danger and uncontrollability of the servant. The tricksters appearing in foreign analogies are also thoroughly selfish and make innocent beings deceive or die in order to satisfy their desires and escape from danger. Efforts to punish or reform these tricksters are futile and they run away. Therefore, this folktale can also be seen as having a purpose and meaning to let us know that this archetypal shadow is very dangerous and that consciousness cannot control or assimilate it, but only awe and contemplate it. Trickster is an irrational manifestation of revivifying natural energy that rises from the unconscious as a compensation for hardened existing structure and order. The phenomenon may be destructive and immoral from the standpoint of the existing collective mind, but it should be seen as a function of the collective unconscious, a more fundamental psychic function that cannot be morally defined. The servant, a figure of the trickster archetype, is a being that brings transformation and has the duality and contradiction of destructiveness and creativity. The endings of this folktale's analogies are diverse, reflecting the diversified response of the audience's mind due to the ambivalence of the trickster, and also suggesting various responses toward the problem of the trickster from the unconscious. It also shows that the trickster is a problem of inconclusive and controversial contradictions that cannot be controlled with a conscious rational attitude, and that we can only seriously contemplate the trickster archetype within us.