Over ₴540,000 in Loan Debt Recovered Through Court

Recovering money under a loan agreement depends not on the borrower's promises, but on a well-constructed legal strategy and strict procedural discipline. In this case, the debtor did not deny receiving the funds — but disputed the contract terms, the repayment deadlines, and the authenticity of signatures. These are textbook defences in debt recovery disputes and require a systematic, evidence-led legal response.

The first step was a thorough review of all loan agreements, payment records, and the circumstances under which the funds were transferred. Based on that analysis, the attorney drafted and filed a claim with the court seeking recovery of the outstanding debt under all relevant agreements.
Key priorities when preparing the claim included:

• Framing the claims correctly for each agreement individually
• Establishing the authenticity of the contracts through payment instructions and receipts
• Proving that the repayment deadlines had passed
• Separately arguing for recovery of the foreign-currency debt in its original denomination, without converting it to hryvnias

The claim was drafted with the defendant's likely objections in mind — specifically, anticipated challenges to the contract terms and arguments that repayment obligations had not yet fallen due.

Throughout the proceedings, the attorney attended all hearings, advanced the client's claims, and provided detailed submissions on each loan agreement. When the defendant filed a response acknowledging only the USD 1,100 debt and alleging forgery of the other agreements, the legal strategy was adjusted to address these new risks.
Particular focus was placed on:

• Demonstrating that the forgery allegations were entirely unsupported by evidence
• Rebutting the claim that repayment obligations had not yet matured
• Highlighting the defendant's own implicit acknowledgement of having received the funds
• Establishing the internal consistency and integrity of the contract texts

One of the defendant's key lines of defence was the assertion that the contract terms had been altered and that signatures had been forged. The legal response was clear: bare allegations without supporting evidence cannot override a written agreement backed by documented payment records. The defendant's failure to produce their own copies of the agreements, their inability to submit any evidence of forgery, and their practical avoidance of the motions they had themselves filed — all of these factors worked in the client's favour and were reflected consistently in the court's judgment.

The court granted the claim in full. The defendant was ordered to pay:

• Over UAH 540,000 under two loan agreements
• USD 1,100 under a foreign-currency loan agreement

The judgment has entered into legal force and is enforceable under Ukraine's Law on Enforcement Proceedings. The full text of the decision is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.