Collection of the amount owed on the receipt was refused

In open court, the court considered a civil case against: L. K. Z. to the defendant: A. J. A. on debt collection. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to recover the debt on the receipt. At the hearing, L. K. Z. changed his claims, explaining that in April 2014, together with A. Zh., he opened a store selling meat products.  A. J. I bought the store on my own behalf, and he stayed there as a salesman, and also spent his money on purchases, store repairs, equipment purchases, and meat purchases in the first month of the store's operation. In total, he spent 3000000 tenge on the development of the store, which he pledged to transfer by February 2019, but has not fulfilled his obligations to date. In addition, when distributing profits in the store, they are not satisfied that they calculated the loan amount that A. Zh. will pay, and only then divided the profit in half, so they believe that this amount is included in the amount of 3000000 tenge. The court did not recognize the claim of A. Zh. by the court, it explained that L. K. She is his own aunt. In 2014, he offered to buy the butcher shop where he worked as a salesman, and also promised to take over the entire work organization.  Together with her sisters, she issued a loan for 3000000 tenge and purchased this store, and in 2015 she received a grant to purchase equipment for a meat products store. In turn, L. K., having previously worked as a salesman in this store, took over the purchase of meat. He gave part of the money to buy meat himself, and part of the money to L. K., later L. K. received the money to buy meat from the proceeds. At the end of the month following the deduction of all expenses, as well as the loan amount, they distributed the profit equally with the LC. He did not borrow any money from L.K. He did not borrow from L. K.  The amount of 3,000,000 tenge was withdrawn, she does not know. When the store opened, he took over all the basic expenses, bought a store, purchased equipment, L. K. participated in the first cosmetic repair of the store, the repair costs amounted to about 100-150 thousand tenge.

 

As proof, the receipt submitted by L. K. contains his photograph, but he does not remember that he made any commitment to L. K., perhaps L. K. used any document and made a receipt out of it. Since April 2016, he stopped his joint work with LK and took the rent from the store and leased it to the plaintiff. Witness D. S. A. explained to the court that L. K. was their aunt, A. J. and E.A. were her sisters.  In 2014, L. K. offered him A. J. and E. A. (they are all his nephews) agreed to buy the butcher shop where he worked as a salesman, three of them took out a loan and bought the store premises. L. K. started organizing the store, buying meat, and selling it, and A. J. T. K. registered as an individual entrepreneur and kept tax records.  There were no monetary obligations to L. K.. Witness K. A. B. explained to the court that L. K. had been buying meat from him for sale through the store since about 2012-13.  In 2016, L. K. invited him to work together in the store where he was shopping, and L. K. When he sold the meat, he registered it with the seller.  The store was rented by S. J., and by the end of the month the revenue was evenly distributed. The court, having heard the parties, questioned witnesses, and studied the case materials, considers that the statement of claim is not subject to satisfaction on the following grounds: according to Article 72 of the CPC RK, "each party must prove the circumstances referred to in support of its claims...." According to Article 8 of the Civil Code RK "citizens and legal entities They must act in good faith, reasonably and fairly in exercising their rights.... It assumes the honesty, decency and fairness of the actions of participants in civil law relations." The plaintiff, suing the defendant, indicated that a loan agreement had been concluded between them and he provided the defendant with funds in the amount of 3,000,000 tenge, which he voluntarily did not want to give back. Subsequently, at the court hearing, L. K. he changed the grounds for the debt, stating that the amount of KZT 3,000,000 arose as a result of his investing his own funds to purchase a meat products store, purchase necessary equipment, purchase meat, repair the store during the period of joint work with A. Zh. The plaintiff, justifying his claims, did not provide any evidence that he fulfilled the terms of the loan, confirmed in writing money withdrawal. Then art. The legislation 152 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes the requirement that transactions in excess of 100 MCI must be made in writing, Article 153 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan stipulates that non-compliance with this Agreement does not invalidate this transaction, but deprives the Parties of confirmation of its commission by testimony. Taking into account the specifics of the loan agreement as a written transaction, the court considers that its conclusion, content and execution must be confirmed by written evidence. The defendant consistently and steadily denies the fact of receiving money from L. K. A. Zh. Based on its literal content, it is impossible to draw an unambiguous conclusion from the presented receipt about the withdrawal of funds from L. K. A. Zh. in the amount of 3,000,000 tenge. In such cases, the court has not provided evidence confirming the occurrence of any obligations between the plaintiff, etc. It considers that the fact of providing funds has not been confirmed, therefore, the claims should be refused due to the groundlessness of the claims. Since the agreement on joint activities, as required by art. 228 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan was not provided, the plaintiff did not find his confirmation of the agreement with the defendant to conduct a joint business, in addition, the parties do not exclude that the joint activity has been discontinued since April 2016. there were no mutual claims.

 

Based on the above and guided by art. 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, art. 222-226 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the courts of the Republic of Kazakhstan : L. K. Z. K. refuse to satisfy claims for debt collection in the amount of 3,000,000 tenge to the groundlessness of the stated claims. To collect from L. K. Z. expenses for a representative in favor of A. Zh. A. in the amount of 50,000 (fifty thousand) tenge. 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases