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 No. 2, the lower court determined that, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, B consumed most of the down payment and intermediate payment of KRW 700 million in the instant sales contract until the time of the instant property division agreement, and determined that if B divided the Defendant into the remainder claim of the instant real estate and the E apartment deposit money into KRW 1,430,000,000, according to the instant property division agreement, B would be placed in excess of the obligation due to the instant property division agreement.

Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In doing so, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of excess of obligation in a revocation suit.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the division of property following divorce is a system with the economic difficulty of supporting the other party, which is the liquidation of the joint property achieved through cooperation between the other party during the marriage. Even though the debtor, who has already been in excess of his/her obligation, is divorced and transfers a certain property to his/her spouse to the division of property, thereby reducing the joint security against the general creditor, barring any special circumstance to deem that such division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, the creditor is not subject to revocation as a fraudulent act, unless there is any special circumstance to deem that such division of property is excessive beyond a considerable degree pursuant to the purport of Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act, but it can not be deemed as a legitimate division of property, but it can be subject to revocation. However, the burden