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.
THE ABSENCE OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING
The manager applied to the court to challenge the debtor's payment (case no. A56-68630/21).
In refusing to satisfy the claim, the court of first instance referred to the defendant's evidence of the transfer of cars to the debtor, which refutes the applicant's argument about unequal counter-provision. The court also took into account that the manager did not question the market value of the vehicles purchased by the debtor, as well as the absence of arguments by the applicant about the interest or affiliation of the participants in the disputed legal relationship.
The appeal was satisfied with the application, since the insurance of vehicles was carried out by individuals, and not by the debtor; according to the statements on the company's current accounts, cars were never serviced, spare parts were never purchased, gasoline, routine repairs were not paid; insurance premiums for OSAGO, CASCO were not paid.
The above led to the court's conclusion that the vehicles had not actually been transferred to the debtor and had never been in his possession. The Court of Appeal considered it reasonable to assume that the vehicles were sold by the defendant directly to individual buyers, and contracts with the debtor were concluded in order to justify payments made in favor of the defendant.
The district court upheld the ruling of the first instance, recognizing that the defendant had provided evidence of the retaliation of the contested transactions, recognized by the court of first instance as permissible and convincing: purchase and sale agreements, acts of acceptance and transfer of vehicles, invoices and invoices, as well as passports of vehicles, in which the debtor is listed as next after the defendant. the owner of the relevant vehicle. The managers have not provided any evidence refuting the fact that the defendant transferred vehicles to the debtor in the framework of the disputed legal relationship.
The district Court agreed with the argument of the cassation appeal that the absence of registration of the vehicle in the traffic police for the debtor cannot be the basis for concluding that the disputed payments and purchase and sale agreements, in fulfillment of which payments were made. Registration of vehicles is provided by the legislator in order to allow them to participate in traffic, and not to confirm ownership of the vehicle.
In refusing to satisfy the claim, the court of first instance referred to the defendant's evidence of the transfer of cars to the debtor, which refutes the applicant's argument about unequal counter-provision. The court also took into account that the manager did not question the market value of the vehicles purchased by the debtor, as well as the absence of arguments by the applicant about the interest or affiliation of the participants in the disputed legal relationship.
The appeal was satisfied with the application, since the insurance of vehicles was carried out by individuals, and not by the debtor; according to the statements on the company's current accounts, cars were never serviced, spare parts were never purchased, gasoline, routine repairs were not paid; insurance premiums for OSAGO, CASCO were not paid.
The above led to the court's conclusion that the vehicles had not actually been transferred to the debtor and had never been in his possession. The Court of Appeal considered it reasonable to assume that the vehicles were sold by the defendant directly to individual buyers, and contracts with the debtor were concluded in order to justify payments made in favor of the defendant.
The district court upheld the ruling of the first instance, recognizing that the defendant had provided evidence of the retaliation of the contested transactions, recognized by the court of first instance as permissible and convincing: purchase and sale agreements, acts of acceptance and transfer of vehicles, invoices and invoices, as well as passports of vehicles, in which the debtor is listed as next after the defendant. the owner of the relevant vehicle. The managers have not provided any evidence refuting the fact that the defendant transferred vehicles to the debtor in the framework of the disputed legal relationship.
The district Court agreed with the argument of the cassation appeal that the absence of registration of the vehicle in the traffic police for the debtor cannot be the basis for concluding that the disputed payments and purchase and sale agreements, in fulfillment of which payments were made. Registration of vehicles is provided by the legislator in order to allow them to participate in traffic, and not to confirm ownership of the vehicle.
30.01.2025
