The subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition of the assignment agreement of the claim under the loan agreement between the bank and the financial company as invalid, as well as the application of the statute of limitations.
The court refused to satisfy the claim, since the plaintiff did not provide the court with a copy of the disputed agreement, which made it impossible to examine it and provide a legal assessment, and also did not prove that the financial company did not have the right to carry out factoring operations at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. The court took into account that the plaintiff did not exercise the right to file a motion to request evidence by the court. Also, the court noted that the plaintiff’s disagreement with the amount of debt cannot be the basis for recognizing the assignment agreement of claim as invalid, and the statute of limitations does not apply to contractual legal relations regarding the assignment of claim.
The court also emphasized that the very fact of concluding an assignment agreement of claim does not create an unconditional obligation for the borrower to pay the debt in exactly the amount specified in the disputed agreement.
The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the court of first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
