RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
HOW FAIR IS THE CONDITION OF 5% PER MONTH ON THE LOAN?
The creditor applied to the court for the inclusion of claims in the debtor's register (case no. A32-39676/23).
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance concluded that the applicant had missed the limitation period for filing the relevant claim.
After reviewing the separate dispute on appeal, the court of appeal concluded that the court of first instance had misinterpreted the terms of the agreement regarding the loan repayment period, which led to an incorrect application of the statute of limitations. Since the fact of the transfer of funds is confirmed by documents, in the absence of evidence of repayment of loans, the court of appeal recognized the applicant's claims as justified and subject to satisfaction as part of the third stage of the register of creditors' claims of the debtor.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that when assessing the evidence presented by the creditor in the case file as sufficient to confirm the existence of debt under loan agreements, neither the court of first instance nor the court of appeal took into account the debtor's arguments about repayment of obligations under loan agreements on the part of the co-borrower, including partially, as well as providing an apartment for rent, by concluding a purchase and sale agreement between the debtor and the creditor. In the case under consideration, the court of appeal did not give any assessment to the arguments of the debtor and his financial manager, and did not reflect the result of consideration of the request to add additional evidence to the case file either in the minutes of the court session or in the appealed decision.
At the same time, the issue of repayment of debts submitted for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor is a circumstance essential for the proper resolution of this separate dispute.
Objecting to the satisfaction of the creditor's claims, the debtor referred to the high interest rate for the use of the loan, which significantly exceeds the average market value of similar loans. However, the courts did not give a proper assessment of the debtor's objections, did not evaluate the terms of the loan agreements concluded by the parties on the loan usage fee, did not compare the interest rate set in the agreements with the average market value of the loans, did not assess the fact that the amount of the specified fee clearly exceeds a reasonable amount of profit of the creditor (lender), contradicts the economic By the nature of the loan agreement, it violates the balance of interests of the lender and the borrower, imposing deliberately burdensome conditions on the latter.
Photo: Freepik
In rejecting the application, the court of first instance concluded that the applicant had missed the limitation period for filing the relevant claim.
After reviewing the separate dispute on appeal, the court of appeal concluded that the court of first instance had misinterpreted the terms of the agreement regarding the loan repayment period, which led to an incorrect application of the statute of limitations. Since the fact of the transfer of funds is confirmed by documents, in the absence of evidence of repayment of loans, the court of appeal recognized the applicant's claims as justified and subject to satisfaction as part of the third stage of the register of creditors' claims of the debtor.
The cassation sent the dispute for reconsideration, pointing out that when assessing the evidence presented by the creditor in the case file as sufficient to confirm the existence of debt under loan agreements, neither the court of first instance nor the court of appeal took into account the debtor's arguments about repayment of obligations under loan agreements on the part of the co-borrower, including partially, as well as providing an apartment for rent, by concluding a purchase and sale agreement between the debtor and the creditor. In the case under consideration, the court of appeal did not give any assessment to the arguments of the debtor and his financial manager, and did not reflect the result of consideration of the request to add additional evidence to the case file either in the minutes of the court session or in the appealed decision.
At the same time, the issue of repayment of debts submitted for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor is a circumstance essential for the proper resolution of this separate dispute.
Objecting to the satisfaction of the creditor's claims, the debtor referred to the high interest rate for the use of the loan, which significantly exceeds the average market value of similar loans. However, the courts did not give a proper assessment of the debtor's objections, did not evaluate the terms of the loan agreements concluded by the parties on the loan usage fee, did not compare the interest rate set in the agreements with the average market value of the loans, did not assess the fact that the amount of the specified fee clearly exceeds a reasonable amount of profit of the creditor (lender), contradicts the economic By the nature of the loan agreement, it violates the balance of interests of the lender and the borrower, imposing deliberately burdensome conditions on the latter.
Photo: Freepik
28.07.2025
