The part against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. Since a divorce by agreement provides that the effect of divorce by reporting as prescribed by the Family Court Act on the Registration of Family Relationship upon confirmation of the intention of divorce shall take effect, it shall be recognized that any special circumstances that anyone would have obtained for recognition of invalidation as a divorce by agreement should be recognized, and otherwise, it shall be reasonable in light of the legal and de facto importance of the divorce declaration and the fact that any person had the intention of temporary divorce between the parties to divorce by agreement has the intention of legitimate divorce by law

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da59579 Decided May 29, 2001, etc.). Meanwhile, the division of property at the time of divorce is so excessive that it cannot be deemed reasonable contrary to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, and it is not subject to the creditor’s right of revocation as a fraudulent act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the division of property at the time of divorce is a disposal of property by the claim for division of property, and is not subject to the creditor’s right of revocation as a fraudulent act due to the above special circumstances, the scope of revocation

(2) On July 28, 2000, 2000Da14101, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da58963, Jan. 28, 2005, etc.). 2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the fact that (a) B and the defendant were legally married on December 6, 1974, but they were married on May 30, 2008; (b) B received 335,00,000,000 won as the remainder of the purchase price of the three real estate of this case on December 4, 2007, which was paid by cashier’s checks; and (c) on the same day, the defendant paid the above amount to the Defendant on December 5, 2007, which was paid to the Defendant on the account of the Defendant’s securities account under the name of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant’s assertion that property division was not a fraudulent act by the Defendant, etc.