A CHILD HARDLY NEEDS A CAR, UNLIKE CREDITORS

The manager applied to the court to challenge the car purchase agreement (case no. A25-2700/18).

The court of first instance granted the application, recognizing the contested purchase and sale agreement as a fake transaction covering up the sale of the car to the debtor, committed in order to prevent foreclosure on the property according to creditors' claims.

The appeal refused to satisfy the claims, pointing out the lack of evidence confirming that the disputed car belonged to the debtor; the court proceeded from the fact that the indication in the text of the debtor's contract was compliance with the requirements of the law on concluding transactions by minors. According to the court, the contested transaction is aimed at acquiring property by the defendant, there is no evidence of the debtor's participation in concluding the disputed agreement, the fact of harm to creditors or the debtor and the presence of signs of abuse of rights in the actions of the parties to the transaction have not been proven.

The cassation upheld the ruling of the first instance, drawing attention to the fact that the market value of the car at the date of conclusion of the disputed purchase agreement was 17 million rubles (sold under the contract for 200 thousand rubles). There is no information in the contract about the presence of defects in the car that significantly affect its value; relevant evidence has not been provided in the case file. The transaction was completed within three years prior to the date of acceptance of the application for declaring the debtor bankrupt.

The seller and the legal representative of the debtor's (buyer's) minor child did not disclose reasonable economic motives for the transaction; the co-respondent did not substantiate the need for the minor child to purchase the disputed vehicle.