1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt from heir-defendants under a loan agreement concluded by a deceased borrower.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court emphasized that the liability of heirs for the debts of the deceased is partial (proportional to their share in the inheritance), rather than joint and several, as erroneously determined by the lower courts.
* An important aspect was the issue of the proper composition of defendants: the court of first instance failed to distinguish the status of a person as a legal representative of a minor child and as a personal debtor, which led to confusion regarding the procedural status of PERSON_1.
* The Supreme Court pointed out a procedural error by the lower courts, which failed to take into account the bank’s amended statement of claim, where the number of defendants had been changed, and did not formalize this with the appropriate procedural documents.
* The court stressed that the heir’s obligation to be liable for the debts of the deceased is limited exclusively to the value of the inherited property, which requires a thorough determination of the scope and value of such property.
* It was also noted that a court does not have the right to involve co-defendants on its own initiative, as determining the composition of parties is the exclusive right of the plaintiff; however, the court is obliged to verify the appropriateness of the defendants *ex officio*.
* Since the lower courts did not clearly define the composition of the parties and did not differentiate the liability, this made it impossible to correctly resolve the case on the merits.
3. **Court ruling:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the claims against PERSON_1 and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the court of first instance, leaving the decision unchanged in the remaining part.
In this decision, the Supreme Court clearly reaffirmed the position that the liability of heirs for the obligations of the decedent is not joint and several, departing from the practice of lower courts that groundlessly imposed a joint and several duty upon the heirs to repay the loan.
