1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery from the defendants in favor of the bank of the debt, which consists of the inflationary increase of the debt and 3% per annum, accrued on the amount of debt that arose on the basis of an unexecuted court decision on the recovery of credit debt.
2. The court of cassation established that the courts of previous instances mistakenly refused to satisfy the bank’s claims for the recovery of 3% per annum on the basis of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, because they did not take into account that the existence of a court decision on the recovery of debt under the loan agreement from the defendants, which was not executed, does not terminate the legal relationship of the parties and does not deprive the creditor of the right to receive the amounts provided for in Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, for the entire period of delay. The court also noted that the courts did not take into account the legal conclusions set out in the resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the consequences of delay in the performance of a monetary obligation, and also did not properly assess the motion to apply the statute of limitations. The court also referred to the fact that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the conclusion regarding the termination of suretyship upon the adoption of a court decision on the recovery of debt.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and sent the case for a new appellate review.
