1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement.
2. The court of cassation upheld the cassation appeal, supporting the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to renew the term for filing an application for review of the default judgment and left this application without consideration. The court proceeded from the fact that the defendant missed the deadline for filing an application for review of the default judgment and did not provide evidence of valid reasons for missing this deadline. The court noted that the defendant’s receipt of a copy of the default judgment is confirmed by a registered notification, and the defendant did not refute the presumption of good faith performance by postal workers of their duties. The court also indicated that the lack of information on tracking the postal item on the “Ukrposhta” website does not disprove the fact of its sending and receipt by the defendant. The court emphasized that the assessment of the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline is within the competence of the court of first instance, and the consequence of missing the deadline is leaving the application without consideration. The Court noted that in this case, it departs from the conclusions set forth in its decision of November 09, 2021, in case No. 214/5505/16 (proceedings No. 14-74ts21).
3. The Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of previous instances unchanged.
