1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of funds from an individual as a guarantor under a loan agreement in favor of the bank.
2. The court of cassation considered the issue of the validity of the partial satisfaction of the application for securing the claim, namely the imposition of seizure on the defendant’s funds and corporate rights. The court noted that securing a claim is a means that guarantees the execution of a court decision in the future. The court took into account that the execution of a court decision depends on the availability of the necessary amount of funds from the defendant, and the defendant has the right to dispose of his funds and corporate rights. The court emphasized that the requirement to provide evidence regarding obvious things (the defendant’s right to dispose of his property) is the application of a high standard of proof, which contradicts the position of the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court. At the same time, the court of cassation established that the appellate court did not take into account the pledge agreements, which already secure the fulfillment of the borrower’s obligations under the loan agreement for a certain amount, and it is premature to take measures to secure the claim for the entire amount of the claim.
3. The court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the amount on which the arrest is imposed, and sent the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal in the part of the amount secured by the pledge agreements.
