Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Surety Agreement as Not Executed and Invalid.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. A signature is a mandatory requisite of a legal transaction, and its absence may lead to the nullity of the contract.
2. The court deviates from previous practice and notes that a transaction that has not been executed (not concluded) cannot be declared invalid.
3. The signature expertise was conducted on a copy of the document, which raises doubts about its authenticity.
4. The previous court decision in case No. 185/8369/15-c has a prejudicial significance and confirms the fact of concluding the surety agreement.
Court Decision: Deny the claim for recognition of the surety agreement as not executed and invalid, modifying the reasoning part of the decision.
