Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. The subject matter of the dispute involves the recovery of debt under a notarized loan agreement and a counterclaim for the invalidation of said agreement on the grounds of lack of consideration (non-receipt of funds).
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle that a notarized loan agreement, which is a real contract, serves as proper evidence not only of the fact of the transaction’s execution but also of the fact of the transfer of funds. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the lack of consideration for the agreement lies exclusively with the borrower, who, in this case, failed to provide any convincing evidence to refute the fact of receipt of funds or to challenge the authenticity of their own signature. A significant argument was that the original loan agreement was in the possession of the creditor, which, pursuant to the presumption established in Article 545 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, indicates that the debtor has failed to perform their obligation. The Court also noted that a mere denial of the fact of receipt of money without providing evidence (e.g., results of a forensic handwriting examination) is insufficient to invalidate the agreement. Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out that the issue of the lender’s financial capacity is not a key factor in establishing the existence of a debt, provided that the agreement itself was signed by the parties and notarized. The Court in this case relied on the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court dated April 6, 2026, which details the mechanism of a borrower’s defense against claims under a loan agreement (exception) and the distribution of the burden of proof in such disputes.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts regarding the recovery of the principal amount of the debt and the dismissal of the counterclaim, finding them to be lawful and well-founded.
