Here is the translation:
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the investment agreement dated January 12, 2010 between PERSON_1, PERSON_3, and PERSON_2 regarding the reconstruction of a dormitory premises.
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
– The court drew attention to the possibility of qualifying the agreement as fraudulent, meaning it was concluded with the purpose of evading a court decision on debt recovery.
– Family relationships between the parties to the agreement were established, which may indicate the artificial nature of the transaction.
– The agreement was concluded after the debt on contractor agreements had arisen, which may indicate an intent to create obstacles for debt collection.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for a new review to examine the circumstances of the agreement’s conclusion in more detail.
Note: The court deviated from its previous position regarding the qualification of fictitious transactions, expanding the grounds for declaring agreements invalid.
