A woman from Odessa paid off her loan, but Monobank claimed she owed 92,459 hryvnias. Here’s what the court decided.

The client Monobank settled her loan. However, despite this, she was presented with a debt of 92,459 hryvnias. This is stated in the decision of the Primorsky District Court of Odessa, published on May 1, 2025.

On October 30, 2017, the woman submitted an application form for a banking services contract with PJSC "Universal Bank," specifically for opening a current account and establishing a credit limit for the amount specified in the attachment as per the terms of the contract, under which she received a card with a credit limit of 20,000 hryvnias. As of the date of the court appeal, despite settling her debt, an outstanding amount of 92,459 hryvnias had arisen.

The woman applied for a loan of 20,000 hryvnias at the agreed interest rate of 0.0001% per annum. Considering the calculation of returned and received funds during the loan period, she believes that the bank has grossly violated her rights by unlawfully charging interest, which served as grounds for the premature termination of the contract. The bank also unilaterally changed the terms of the contract by increasing the credit limit without her consent, which forced her to seek legal recourse with a corresponding lawsuit.

"Before concluding the disputed contract, the plaintiff was aware of all significant terms of the loan (purpose of the loan, amount and type of interest rate, loan term, repayment options), her will was free and aligned with her internal intentions. The specified contract was concluded at her initiative, and she consciously entered into the agreement under the stated conditions, without expressing additional requirements regarding the terms of the disputed contract at the time of its conclusion, and subsequently fulfilled it for an extended period. Therefore, there are no grounds for the termination of the loan agreement," - stated Monobank.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the woman’s request for the claim. She was informed of all significant conditions of the loan (purpose of the loan, amount and type of interest rate, loan term, repayment options).

"The court concluded that there were no grounds for satisfying the claim since the plaintiff was aware of all significant conditions of the loan (purpose of the loan, amount and type of interest rate, loan term, repayment options), her will was free and aligned with her internal intentions, the specified contract was initiated by the plaintiff, and she consciously entered into the agreement under the stated conditions, without expressing additional requirements regarding the terms of the disputed contract at the time of its conclusion, and subsequently fulfilled it for an extended period. Therefore, there are no grounds for the termination of the loan agreement," - emphasized the court.