[Case] Zhang sued Wang in court due to a private lending dispute. The court ruled that Wang should repay Zhang's loan of 100000 yuan and interest, but Wang did not fulfill it on time. Zhang applied to the court for compulsory enforcement and provided Wang with a property clue available for enforcement - a commercial housing in a certain residential area. During the execution process, the court found that the property was not under the name of the person being executed, Wang, and no property available for execution was found. Therefore, the case cannot continue to be executed. Originally, the debt was borrowed from Zhang when Wang purchased a commercial property. Later, Wang and Zhang divorced, and the divorce agreement signed by both parties stipulated that a commercial property belonged to Zhang, and Wang would enjoy and bear the creditor's rights and debts. Zhang believed that Wang's transfer of property seriously damaged his interests, so he sued Wang and the co owner of the involved property, Zhang, to the court, requesting confirmation that the property ownership change agreement for the commodity house was invalid and that Wang had a 50% ownership stake in the commodity house registered under Zhang's name. The court held that Wang and Zhang agreed in the divorce agreement that the common property during their marriage would belong to Zhang, but no evidence was provided to prove that Zhang was aware of the content of the agreement at the time of signing. Therefore, the above agreement is valid for Wang and Zhang and does not have legal effect on Zhang. Wang voluntarily gave up his share of the common property in the divorce agreement while the debt was still unpaid, and assumed the debt as an individual. This constitutes negligence in exercising the right to divide the property, resulting in the inability to smoothly realize the third-party debt. Zhang, as a creditor of Wang, filed a subrogation lawsuit in the name of the applicant for execution, which is justified and supported. If Zhang fails to appear in court after being summoned by summons, it shall be deemed as a waiver of relevant litigation rights, which shall not affect the trial of this case. The court ruled to confirm that 50% of the property ownership of the commodity house belongs to Mr. Wang and is enforceable property. The judge stated that the agreement on the division of property acquired during the existence of the marital relationship in the divorce agreement is legally binding on both parties; Unless a third party is aware of the contents of the above agreement, they shall not confront a third party acting in good faith. Wang, knowing that the loan had not been repaid, still distributed the property to Zhang through a divorce agreement without compensation, attempting to "clear his name" and evade debt. Although the property involved in the case is registered under the name of Zhang, it was purchased by Wang and Zhang during their marriage. Even if they divided their joint property through a property division clause, the clause does not have any effect against the creditor Zhang. The judge explained that according to Article 14, Paragraph 3 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing, Confiscation, and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by People's Courts", which states that "if a co owner initiates a property division lawsuit or applies for the executor to initiate a property division lawsuit on behalf of Wang, the people's court shall allow it", Zhang, as a creditor of Wang, has the right to initiate a property division lawsuit on behalf of Wang in accordance with the regulations to confirm the debtor's share of the common property. In this way, it increases the ways for creditors to realize the benefits of the judgment, which is more conducive to solving the problem of difficult enforcement. (New Society)