The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the effect of divorce

A. In light of the legal importance of the declaration of divorce under the formal principle as to the effect of divorce, in cases of divorce by agreement, the intention of divorce refers to the intention of resolving the legal marital relationship. Thus, insofar as a divorce by agreement has been reported under the agreement between the parties intending to temporarily resolve the marital relationship under the marina Act, it cannot be said that there exists no intention of divorce between the parties even if there exists any other purpose of divorce by agreement. Accordingly, such agreement shall not be null and void.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Meu171, Jun. 11, 1993). This legal doctrine applies to cases where a divorce is made by reconciliation or conciliation in a judicial divorce proceeding conducted under the jurisdiction of a court.

Meanwhile, property division according to divorce may be divided into both the liquidation elements of the property formed during marriage and the support elements after divorce (defensive value) and the nature of the property as benefits for compensating for mental damage (defensive value) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da73105, Jun. 29, 2006). The debt owed by a married couple to a third party during marriage does not, in principle, be liquidated as an individual’s debt, except for the debt arising from ordinary family affairs or that incurred by the formation of common property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Meu501, May 25, 1993).

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the divorce between the defendant and C was solely conducted for the purpose of avoiding compulsory execution and preserving the property from the creditors of C, and that the divorce was not based on the genuine intent, i.e., the fictitious divorce by false conspiracy, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the property division agreement of this case as well as the agreement of this case is invalid by false

(c) however, if any;