1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Hyperbud LLC filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a sale and purchase agreement for non-residential premises concluded between natural persons, on the grounds that such agreement violates its rights as the construction project owner and land plot lessee.
2. **Court’s reasoning:** The court concluded that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff — invalidation of the agreement (rescissory action) — is ineffective, as it does not lead to the direct restoration of the plaintiff’s ownership rights. In this case, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that it is departing from previous legal positions (in particular, those set forth in the resolutions dated July 23, 2024, and October 19, 2023), where invalidation of an agreement was considered an appropriate method of protection in similar disputes. Instead, relying on the new position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated July 23, 2026, the court emphasized that the appropriate method of protection is the filing of a lawsuit for the recognition of property rights and the recovery of property from another’s illegal possession. The court underscored that the selection of an inappropriate method of protection is an independent and sufficient ground for dismissing the claim. The court also indicated that it lacks the authority to re-evaluate evidence, and that the challenged decisions of the lower courts are lawful and well-reasoned.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Hyperbud LLC and upheld all previous court decisions without changes.
