1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under the loan agreement and the recognition of this agreement as invalid.
2. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim of LLC “Agrofirma Prestige” regarding the recovery of debt from SE “Koniarstvo Ukrainy”, since the fact of granting the loan and its non-repayment were established by the courts, and the defendant’s arguments about the lack of authority of the branch manager to conclude the agreement were not properly proven. The court of cassation also noted that the claim of the State Property Fund of Ukraine to declare the loan agreement invalid was rightfully dismissed, since the representative of the Fund repeatedly failed to appear in court without valid reasons. The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of legality of the transaction, which was not disproved in this case. Also, the Supreme Court indicated that the prosecutor’s arguments amount to the need to re-evaluate the evidence and circumstances, which cannot be the subject of review in the cassation procedure. **:** The court of cassation refers to the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Cassation Commercial Court as part of the Supreme Court dated November 18, 2022 in case No. 905/458/21, regarding the application of part four of Article 202 and paragraph 4 of part one of Article 226 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim of LLC “Agrofirma Prestige” and to dismiss the claim of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, and overturned the decision of the appellate court in this part.
