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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, concluded a contract between August 23, 2007 and October 17, 2007 that the debtor B sells 1,2, and 3 real estate of this case, and on December 5, 2007, the defendant paid 330,000 won from the purchase price of the third real estate of this case as the property division (hereinafter "property division of this case") on May 30, 2008 (hereinafter "the property division of this case"), Eul and the defendant shared agreement on May 30, 208; Eul's active property at the time of the above division of property, including the above 330,00,00,000 won, total 715,311,930 won, total 70,000,000 won, 000,000 won, 305,00630,005 won, 306,50630,2040.

In addition, the lower court deemed that the instant division of property was completed on the premise that both the Defendant’s active and negative property at the time would vest in B, and further, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the instant division of property was not a fraudulent act on the grounds that: (a) B was fully distributed in advance or was jointly distributed by the Defendant and B under the pretext of property division, excluding the said KRW 330,000,000; (b) the Defendant’s positive and negative property at the time was calculated to the effect that the amount of KRW 1,2,330,500,000 in the remainder of the instant property sales amount, excluding the said KRW 330,000,000, was not a

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

In view of the fact that the division of property by divorce is the liquidation of common property formed through mutual cooperation between the parties during the marriage, the support for the other party has not been the nature of support.