Abstract: The real estate ownership agreement in the divorce agreement conforms to the general characteristics of the creditor’s rights, and in principle does not constitute an objection to the exclusion of execution. Considering the family ethics of divorce agreement, it is necessary to break through the principle of equality of creditor’s rights, give priority to the protection of divorce creditor’s rights, and give it the effect of excluding execution. In terms of substantive jurisprudence, the factual property right and the expectation right of property right arrogate the existing dichotomy system of property and debt, and cannot provide a legitimate basis for the exclusion of divorce claims. By giving the divorce creditor’s right part of the real right effect, the real right of the creditor’s right not only provides a reasonable explanation for the strengthening of the creditor’s right of the unregistered successor, but also maintains the purity and system coherence of the concept of real right, which can be exceptionally used as the substantive basis for the exclusion of the execution of the divorce creditor’s right. In terms of procedural jurisprudence, the lawsuit of objection to execution by an outsider is a correction of the formal principle of enforcement, ensuring that the law does not deviate from substantive justice due to formal execution, and organizing full debate between the two parties through litigation procedures to achieve a package of dispute resolution, which constitutes the procedural basis for the exclusion of divorce claims. In the examination of substantive elements, in order to exclude the suspicion of malicious evasion of debts by husband and wife under the guise of divorce, the judge needs to examine the time of signing the divorce agreement earlier than the time of the establishment of the execution of the creditor’s rights, the actual possession of the house involved by the outsider and the failure to register the transfer of the house for reasons other than the outsider.