Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the Termination of an Investment Agreement and Right of Use of the Recreation House “Koncha-Zaspa” as Illegal.
Main Arguments of the Court:
1. The court indicated that the claims for recognizing the termination of the investment agreement as illegal are not an appropriate method of rights protection.
2. After the completion of the investment project, the parties entered into a separate agreement on the use of the premises, which became the basis for using the house.
3. The unilateral legal act of the respondent regarding the contract termination does not automatically terminate legal relations, as it requires judicial assessment of the grounds and circumstances of such termination.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceling previous court decisions regarding the recognition of contract termination as illegal and referring the case for a new review to examine in more detail the circumstances of premises use.
