Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed breakdown:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Declaration of invalidity of a real estate sale and purchase agreement concluded between a debtor and a third party as a “fraudulent transaction” (a transaction made to the detriment of a creditor).
2. **Court arguments:**
– The Court emphasized that private law instruments cannot be used to avoid the performance of obligations or the execution of court judgments that have entered into legal force.
– The qualification of a transaction as “fraudulent” (made to the detriment of a creditor) is based on the principles of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights (Articles 3 and 13 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).
– To declare a for-value contract fraudulent, the mere existence of a debt is insufficient; the court must examine a number of specific circumstances: the time of the contract’s conclusion, the relationship between the parties (familial or otherwise), as well as the conformity of the price to market value and the fact of actual settlement.
– The appellate court made an error, as it limited itself to merely stating the fact of the seller’s indebtedness, without providing a proper assessment of the buyer’s arguments regarding good faith, market pricing, and the lack of acquaintance with the debtor.
– The court of cassation instance emphasized that the absence of a property attachment (seizure) at the time of sale does not preclude fraudulent intent; however, it requires the court to conduct a thorough analysis of all circumstances of the transaction to confirm the bad faith of the parties.
– **Conclusion:** The Supreme Court noted that it is departing from its own previous position set forth in the ruling of July 3, 2019 (case No. 369/11268/16), clarifying that a plaintiff who was not a party to the transaction has the right to challenge it as fraudulent based on the general principles of civil legislation.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s decision regarding the declaration of the contract as invalid, and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
