Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Recovery of debt under a loan agreement and fulfillment of obligations under a suretyship agreement.
2. **Key arguments of the court:**
– The court emphasized that a loan agreement is a real contract; therefore, the key factor for its conclusion is the fact of the transfer of funds, which is confirmed by a receipt.
– Important evidence in the case was the fact that the defendants partially repaid the funds, specifying the purpose of payment in the payment documents as “repayment of debt under the loan agreement,” which indicates their acknowledgment of the receipt of funds.
– The Supreme Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated April 6, 2026 (case No. 368/1257/21), which changes the approach to the distribution of the burden of proof: the borrower is now obligated to prove that the funds were not actually received by them.
– The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the lack of evidence of fund transfer, as the defendants did not provide any evidence to refute the fact of receiving the loan or evidence of the existence of other legal relations that could explain the existence of the receipt.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that establishing the circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence is the exclusive prerogative of the courts of first and appellate instances; therefore, the cassation court has no authority to re-evaluate evidence.
– Since the appellate court correctly applied the norms of substantive law and properly evaluated all circumstances, there are no grounds for overturning its decision.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
