A client repaid a loan, but PrivatBank sued for a debt of 40,859 hryvnias. What was the outcome of the court's decision?

PrivatBank is demanding that a man repay a loan amounting to 40,859 hryvnias. However, he insists that he is making manageable payments under difficult conditions that apply equally to all parties involved. He has also provided evidence of partial loan repayment. This information is stated in the ruling of the Ternivka City Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, published on April 26, 2024.

The man approached JSC CB "PrivatBank" to obtain banking services, for which he signed application No. b/n dated October 5, 2015, under which he received a loan in the form of an established credit limit on his card account, which was later increased to 42,000 hryvnias. Due to the mentioned violations of the loan agreement, as of September 17, 2023, he has an outstanding debt of 40,859 hryvnias, consisting of: principal debt of 40,859 hryvnias. Subsequently, the bank reduced its claims and requested the recovery from the client of the debt under the banking services loan agreement No. b/n dated October 5, 2015, in the amount of 33,509 hryvnias, which consists of: principal debt of 33,509 hryvnias.

The man submitted a response to the court regarding the lawsuit, asking for its dismissal on the grounds that the claim was filed prematurely, as he is fulfilling his obligations under the loan agreement and paying amounts that are manageable for him under the difficult conditions that apply equally to all parties. He provided the court with evidence of partial loan repayment.

A representative of PrivatBank submitted a response to the court regarding the man's feedback, noting that according to paragraph 2.1.1.4.6 of the agreement, the bank has the right, in the event of a client's failure to fulfill obligations to repay debts to the bank within 90 days from the moment such violations occur, to change the lending conditions, setting the deadline for loan repayment from the ninety-first day of the client's violation of the loan repayment obligations and to demand from the client the repayment of the loan, payment of remuneration, commission, and interest for its use, as well as the fulfillment of other obligations under the loan in full. The due date for the monthly payment in the agreement is specified as the 25th day of the month following the reporting month. Additionally, in a letter dated February 28, 2022, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine certified force majeure circumstances, particularly the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which became the basis for the introduction of martial law from 05:30 on February 24, 2022, for a period of 30 days in accordance with the presidential decree dated February 28, 2022, No. 64/2022 "On the Introduction of Martial Law." However, he did not provide evidence of sending a letter to the bank notifying it of the occurrence of force majeure circumstances. The circumstances cited by the client cannot serve as grounds for rejecting the claims. The citizen submitted an additional statement and explanation to the court, requesting the dismissal of the claim and noting that under martial law, liability for violations of the payment schedule is lifted after February 24, 2022. Furthermore, he submitted a written request to the court asking to apply the statute of limitations to the agreement dated October 5, 2015.

What did the court decide?

The court granted PrivatBank's claim. The debtor is to repay the outstanding amount under the loan agreement No. b/n dated October 5, 2015, in the amount of 33,509 hryvnias to the financial institution.

"Considering that the funds received and used by the borrower have not been returned to JSC CB 'PrivatBank' voluntarily, as well as the requirements of part two of Article 530 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, according to which, if the term of the debtor's obligation is determined by the moment of presenting the claim, the creditor has the right to demand its implementation through the court - by obliging the debtor to fulfill the obligation to return the actually received amount of loan funds. A difficult financial situation does not indicate either the exclusivity or the validity of the reasons for non-fulfillment of the court's decision, and therefore cannot be a basis for deferring the execution of the court's decision. The defendant did not provide the court with any proper and admissible evidence that he had notified the plaintiff of the occurrence of force majeure circumstances," the court emphasized.