UAH 263,000 Recovered Under a Loan Agreement from a Corporate Debtor

The dispute arose from a corporate borrower's failure to repay funds advanced under a written loan agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the lender provided the funds as an interest-free repayable facility, with a fixed repayment date. The transfer of funds was evidenced by payment records. When the repayment deadline passed without payment, the client brought proceedings to recover the outstanding debt.

The dispute arose from a corporate entity's failure to repay funds advanced under a written loan agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the lender provided funds as an interest-free repayable financial assistance facility, with a fixed repayment date. The transfer of funds was evidenced by payment records. When the repayment deadline passed without payment, proceedings were issued to recover the outstanding debt.
At the outset, we conducted a legal analysis of the agreement to establish its nature, key terms, and repayment obligations. We assessed the agreement's compliance with applicable law and reviewed all available evidence of the loan advance for relevance, admissibility, sufficiency, and reliability.
Following that analysis, we formed a legal position that the relationship between the parties should be characterised as a loan agreement — regardless of the parties' use of the term "repayable financial assistance."
The claim was drafted to achieve three things:

• Establish that the lender had performed its obligations under the agreement
• Demonstrate that the repayment deadline had fallen due
• Prove the amount of the outstanding debt

Throughout the proceedings, we attended all court hearings, advanced the client's claims, and provided the court with submissions on the legal nature of the relationship and the specific terms of the agreement. The court paid particular attention to the parties' decision to use the "repayable financial assistance" structure rather than a conventional loan agreement.
We submitted that this formulation is a standard contractual mechanism commonly used between corporate entities and does not alter the legal character of the obligation. In substance, the arrangement met all the hallmarks of a loan — funds were transferred to the borrower with an obligation to repay by a fixed date.
Our legal position rested on the following:

• The obligation to repay was expressly set out in the agreement
• Legal classification turns on the substance of an agreement, not its title
• The actual transfer of funds was documented by primary financial records

During proceedings, the defendant denied the claim, asserting that no funds had in fact been received and therefore disputing the existence of any debt in the amount claimed.

In response, we relied on the written agreement and payment records confirming that the funds had been transferred directly to the defendant's bank account. We also drew the court's attention to the fact that the defendant had produced no admissible evidence to rebut the transfer or to demonstrate repayment, and had not exercised the procedural right to seek disclosure of relevant documents where they could not be produced independently.

The court partially upheld the claim and ordered the defendant to repay the outstanding loan debt in the amount of UAH 263,000.
The judgment has entered into force and is enforceable under Ukrainian enforcement proceedings legislation. The full text of the decision is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.