THE SUPREME COURT OF RUSSIA POINTED OUT THE NEED TO INDICATE REAL INTENTIONS OF PARTIES IN CASE OF A DEAL CONCLUSION

The Economic Board of the Supreme Court considered the complaint of an individual against the decisions of the courts of lower jurisdictions, which satisfied the claim of the manager of debtor to invalidate the loan agreement.

The agreement was concluded between the debtor and the individual. According to its terms, the latter was obliged to transfer the money to the debtor in the event of state registration of ownership to the apartment.

The courts of three instances, having satisfied the claims of the manager, applied the consequences of the invalidity of the deal in the form of the obligation of the individual to return the loan amount to the bankruptcy estate.

The arguments of an individual that the parties did not enter into a loan in its pure form, since the receipt contained a certain condition for transferring money - the state registration of the transfer of the ownership, did not bother the judges.

The Supreme Court pointed to the need to indicate real intentions of the parties when concluding a controversial transaction.

According to the position of the individual, the receipt was drawn just before the conclusion of the contract for the sale of an apartment between his mother and the debtor. Moreover, the amount indicated in the receipt was a part of the cost of acquired property. The money was supposed to be transferred to the debtor in the event of registration of ownership of the apartment, which was indicated in the document.

However, the registration did not take place, which is why the obligation to transfer the amount indicated in the receipt did not arise.

Despite this, the courts of lower jurisdictions formalized the approach to consideration of the dispute and saw an unfulfilled debt obligation in the receipt, which served as the reason for the cancellation of the judicial acts (determination No. 305-ES19-13899 (2) dated September 7, 2020).