Here is the translation:<\/p>\n
1. Subject of Dispute: Invalidation of the investment agreement dated January 12, 2010 between PERSON_1, PERSON_3, and PERSON_2 regarding the reconstruction of a dormitory premises.<\/p>\n
2. Main Arguments of the Court:
\n– The court drew attention to the possibility of qualifying the agreement as fraudulent, meaning it was concluded with the purpose of evading a court decision on debt recovery.
\n– Family relationships between the parties to the agreement were established, which may indicate the artificial nature of the transaction.
\n– The agreement was concluded after the debt on contractor agreements had arisen, which may indicate an intent to create obstacles for debt collection.<\/p>\n
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and referred the case for a new review to examine the circumstances of the agreement’s conclusion in more detail.<\/p>\n
Note: The court deviated from its previous position regarding the qualification of fictitious transactions, expanding the grounds for declaring agreements invalid.<\/p>\n