{"id":7999,"date":"2025-04-07T10:36:38","date_gmt":"2025-04-07T07:36:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-753-12145-22-dated-19-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-07T10:36:38","modified_gmt":"2025-04-07T07:36:38","slug":"case-no-753-12145-22-dated-19-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-753-12145-22-dated-19-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 753\/12145\/22 dated 19\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation:<\/p>\n

Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Invalidity of an Apartment Donation Agreement from Father to Minor Son.<\/p>\n

Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n

1. The donation agreement is fraudulent (concluded to the detriment of creditors), as it was entered into to avoid seizure of the debtor’s property.<\/p>\n

2. The court established that the father donated the apartment less than a year before the debt repayment deadline, having outstanding monetary obligations to creditors.<\/p>\n

3. The gratuitous nature of the agreement, family connection between the parties, and the moment of contract execution indicate the debtor’s bad faith behavior.<\/p>\n

Court Decision: The Supreme Court canceled the appellate court’s ruling and sent the case for a new review, as the appellate court did not verify the statute of limitations issue.<\/p>\n

Note: The court deviated from previous practice regarding fraudulent transactions, detailing the criteria for their qualification.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation: Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Invalidity of an Apartment Donation Agreement from Father to Minor Son. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The donation agreement is fraudulent (concluded to the detriment of creditors), as it was entered into to avoid seizure of the debtor’s property. 2. The court established that the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7999\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}