1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement concluded between an individual (the plaintiff) and a limited liability company (the defendant), where the plaintiff is also the director of this company.
2. The courts of previous instances closed the proceedings in the case, considering that there was no subject of the dispute, since the plaintiff and the director of the company (the defendant) are the same person, which, in their opinion, excludes the existence of a dispute as such. The courts referred to the fact that civil proceedings do not provide for the possibility of combining parties in one person. However, the Supreme Court did not agree with this approach, emphasizing that a legal entity acquires rights and obligations through its bodies, and the director, signing the contract on behalf of the company, acts not as an individual, but as a management body of the legal entity. The Supreme Court noted that the absence of a subject of dispute occurs only in the event of termination of its existence, for example, repayment of the debt, and that the very fact of concluding an agreement between individuals and legal entities, where the individual is the director of the legal entity, does not indicate the absence of a dispute. The Court departed from previous conclusions, noting that the closure of proceedings is possible if the subject of the dispute was absent both at the time of filing the claim and at the time of the decision by the court of first instance.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous courts and sent the case to the court of first instance for further consideration.
