The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court acknowledged on October 17, 2006 that the Central Installment Savings Bank (hereinafter “Central Installment Savings Bank”) prior to being declared bankrupt loaned KRW 1.4 billion to the Defendant on October 17, 2006, and on January 16, 201, the principal and interest of the loans as of January 16, 201 were 707,737,561.

However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim based on the following facts: (a) the loan contract of this case was concluded in the name of the defendant in formality, and actually, the Busan Savings Bank used the loan of this case and did not make a claim for the return under the loan contract; (b) the loan of this case seems to have been made according to the systematic plan of the management of the Busan Savings Bank; (c) the defendant affixed a seal on the loan-related documents upon the request of a relative B; and (d) there is no basis or benefits to protect the trustee in bankruptcy or the bankruptcy creditors in comparison with the defendant; and (e) there is no reason or benefits to protect the trustee in bankruptcy or the bankruptcy creditors, and rather, if protecting them more, it would result in extremely contrary to the equity and justice, it is reasonable to view that the claim for the loan of this case against the defendant is not allowed as it constitutes a violation of the good faith principle or an abuse of rights.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Since all property held by the debtor in bankruptcy is constituted a bankrupt estate, and the right to manage and dispose of the bankrupt estate belongs to the trustee in bankruptcy, the trustee in bankruptcy shall hold the same status as the general successor of the debtor in bankruptcy, but when the bankruptcy is declared, the bankruptcy creditor in bankruptcy.