BACK-BREAKING LOANS ARE NOT A REASON FOR NOT RELEASING THE DEBTOR FROM OBLIGATIONS

The courts of two instances, completing the procedure, did not release the debtor from obligations, since the debtor provided false information about income when processing credit obligations.

The courts also concluded that the debtor behaved in bad faith, who, in the presence of unfulfilled loan obligations, being of working age (40 years), in the absence of objective obstacles (restrictions) to employment, did not take measures for official employment for a long period. At the same time, the courts did not accept the debtor's explanation that he lives at the expense of his wife's mother and grandmother, since the case file does not provide evidence of the existence of appropriate financial opportunities for these persons.

The cassation canceled judicial acts and released the debtor from debts, referring to the fact that the debtor, contrary to the conclusions of the court of first instance, performed loan servicing until July – September 2022. According to the manager's report, no illegal actions were detected in the occurrence and fulfillment of obligations to creditors by the debtor, at the time of the occurrence of obligations, the debtor had sources of income and acted in good faith.

The above together indicates that the debtor, assuming credit obligations, had the opportunity to fulfill them and repay the existing debt, and therefore the presumption of non-release from further fulfillment of obligations in connection with the provision of false information in the event of obligations cannot be applied to him.

Taking on unsustainable debt obligations due to a biased assessment of one's own financial capabilities and life circumstances cannot be a reason for not getting rid of debts. Unlike dishonesty, the unreasonableness of an individual's behavior is not in itself such an obstacle.

The fact that the debtor does not have official earnings is confirmed by a certificate from the employment center provided in the case file, which indirectly confirms the debtor's adoption of employment measures. By itself, the absence of a place of work cannot be a reason for refusing to release the debtor from further fulfillment of obligations.