Monobank continues to consider a debt of 18,883 hryvnias owed by a client, despite the court ruling confirming full repayment of the loan.

The man made a payment of 36,800 hryvnias towards his loan. However, Monobank continues to list an outstanding debt of 18,883 hryvnias. This was stated in the decision of the Obolonsky District Court of Kyiv, published on February 6, 2025.

In June 2023, JSC "Universal Bank" filed a lawsuit for the recovery of debt under the "Monobank" service agreement dated December 28, 2020, amounting to 52,128 hryvnias (as of March 13, 2023). The bank justified its claims by stating that a banking services agreement was concluded between the parties through the signing of an application form, and the client was granted a credit of up to 100,000 hryvnias in the form of a credit limit on a payment card. The Berdichev City District Court of Zhytomyr Region ruling on August 1, 2023, which was upheld by the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal on December 5, 2023, partially satisfied the bank's claims in this case and ordered the citizen to pay 36,800 hryvnias to JSC "Universal Bank" for the debt under the "Monobank" banking services agreement dated December 28, 2020, which had accrued as of March 13, 2023. Despite these court rulings and the full payment of the debt in compliance with the court's decision, the bank continues to report an outstanding debt of 18,883 hryvnias. The citizen does not acknowledge this debt because its existence was not proven in court during the debt recovery proceedings. Furthermore, he has repeatedly contacted JSC "Universal Bank" to terminate the "Monobank" service agreement dated December 28, 2020, but has been denied. He notes that based on the aforementioned, his obligations under the "Monobank" banking services agreement dated December 28, 2020, to JSC "Universal Bank" have been fulfilled, as confirmed by the decisions of the first and appellate courts, and the receipt for the debt payment in compliance with the court ruling. Therefore, according to clause 10.4.2 of Chapter 10 of Section I of the Terms and Conditions of service at JSC "Universal Bank," the agreement may be terminated, and the card account closed.

Case Review

The court found that on September 25, 2023, January 8, 2024, and January 16, 2024, the man submitted a written request to the bank asking to terminate the banking services agreement dated December 28, 2020, and to close his checking account. Subsequently, JSC "Universal Bank" sent letters on September 28, 2023, January 31, 2024, and February 2, 2024, providing a written response denying the termination of the banking services agreement dated December 28, 2020. The bank's basis for denying the termination in its latest response was that as of February 2, 2024, there was an outstanding debt of 16,116 hryvnias on the card account under the banking services agreement dated December 28, 2020. Consequently, according to the terms and conditions (clause 10.4; clause 10.4.2), the bank is not entitled to close the client’s account in the event of an outstanding debt under the banking services agreement.

"The plaintiff refers to the unjustifiability of these actions and states that by the ruling of the Berdichev City District Court of Zhytomyr Region dated August 1, 2023, No. 274/3337/23, which was upheld by the Zhytomyr Court of Appeal on December 5, 2023, the claims of JSC 'Universal Bank' against the citizen were partially satisfied, and the citizen was ordered to pay the bank a debt of 36,800 hryvnias under the 'Monobank' banking services agreement dated December 28, 2020, which accrued as of March 13, 2024, along with court fees of 1,894 hryvnias, and this decision has been fully complied with by the plaintiff," - it is indicated in the case materials.

What Did the Court Decide?

The court denied the man's request for relief. Significant violations of the banking service agreement by Monobank were not established.

"According to Part 2 of Article 651 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a contract may be amended or terminated by a court decision at the request of one of the parties in the event of a substantial breach of the contract by the other party and in other cases established by the contract or law. A substantial breach occurs when one party’s actions cause the other party to be significantly deprived of what it expected when entering into the contract. In the course of the case, the court did not find substantial violations of the banking service agreement by the defendant, and the plaintiff did not prove that such violations occurred and deprived him of what he expected when entering into the contract. Based on these grounds, considering the terms of the concluded banking services agreement, the court deems it appropriate to deny the request for the termination of the agreement in full," - emphasized the court.