In the circumstances of this case, the person filed a lawsuit to recover the debt under the loan agreement. She substantiated her claim with the fact that the contract was issued with a receipt, the defendant received 18 thousand UAH and pledged to return them after the sale of the land.

The trial court granted the claims in this part. However, the court of appeals reversed that decision.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal on the lack of evidence of the existence of legal relations between the parties to the loan agreement. So what are the appellate and cassation arguments? Here are the main points:

In essence, a receipt for borrowing cash is a document issued by the debtor to the creditor on the loan after the receipt of the funds, confirming both the fact of the contract and the content of the terms of the contract, and the fact that the debtor receives a certain amount of money.
In this case, the fact of receipt of funds in debt is not confirmed by any receipt, but rather a receipt on receipt of funds, from the contents of which it is possible to establish that a certain amount of funds was transferred.

When examining debt receipts or other written documents, the court must determine the true legal nature of the legal relations of the parties regardless of the name of the document and, depending on the established results, to make the appropriate legal conclusions to determine the fact of the conclusion of the contract.

According to the resolution, the defendant only undertook to pay the plaintiff 18 thousand UAH after the sale of the land, and not to repay the amount of debt received.

Thus, the content of the case in this case does not create any debt for the defendant.