1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of joint and several liability debt under a loan agreement from a borrower and a guarantor, as well as the issue of the lawfulness of reviewing a default judgment of the court of first instance many years after its adoption.<\/p>\n
2. **Court\u2019s arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court made a mistake by overturning the default judgment without a proper assessment of the defendant\u2019s good faith conduct. The Court noted that the defendant had been aware of the existence of the judgment since 2020 through enforcement proceedings, yet initiated the review of the case only six years later, which may indicate an abuse of procedural rights. It is significant that the appellate court did not examine the evidence of the defendant’s awareness of the progress of the enforcement of the judgment, which was provided by the bank’s successor. The Supreme Court underscored that the principle of legal certainty (*res judicata*) is fundamental, and the review of final judgments is possible only in exceptional cases. The Court also indicated that the appellate instance does not have the right to ignore the issue of missing procedural deadlines, which are mandatory for all participants in the proceedings. As a result, the appellate court failed to provide a proper legal assessment as to whether the overturning of the judgment contradicts the principle of the finality of a judicial act.<\/p>\n
3. **Court\u2019s decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n
**Note:** In this decision, the Supreme Court explicitly states that it departs from its previous position, set forth in the resolution of November 9, 2021, in case No. 214\/5505\/16, regarding the procedure for exercising the court’s authority when considering an application for the review of a default judgment in the event of a missed deadline for its submission.<\/p>\n