This Russian case concerned the nature of transferred funds: a loan or an advance for repair work. For the general process, see the private-loan recovery guide; for transfer evidence and objections, see the loan-receipt evidence guide. The case facts and result follow below.
⚖️ A loan receipt or an advance for repair work?
The defendant said the money related to work rather than a loan. The court compared that explanation with the receipt and evidence and awarded the debt. The claim for legal representation costs was only partly allowed.
The document
The receipt recorded a loan amount and an obligation to repay. Amounts are redacted in the published copy.
The objection
The defendant described the money as an advance for repairs and denied receiving money under the receipt.
The outcome
The debt, interest and costs were awarded; part of the representation-cost claim was refused.
⚖️ What the dispute concerned
The claimant sought repayment under a loan agreement, interest and litigation costs. The evidence included a receipt containing an obligation to repay. A demand for repayment had been sent before the court proceedings.
The defendant disputed the claim. He referred to an agreement to repair a house, unfinished work and equipment left behind, and denied receiving the money stated in the receipt. The claimant did not deny that repair work had been performed, but said the loan money was provided after the work had ended.
⚖️ What the court examined
| Question | What the judgment records | Significance in this case |
|---|---|---|
| What did the receipt say? | Money received as a loan with a specified repayment deadline. | The court treated the document as evidence of a loan agreement. |
| Had repair work been performed? | The claimant did not deny that the defendant had carried out repairs. | The existence of work did not establish that this receipt documented an advance payment. |
| What supported the advance-payment explanation? | The argument was not substantiated; admissible and relevant evidence that the receipt money had not been received was not provided. | The objection did not rebut the loan evidence in this case. |
| Was repayment demanded? | The judgment records a pre-action repayment demand sent by post. | The demand formed part of the factual background. |
⚖️ Sequence shown by the case materials
- 1Receipt
An obligation to repay the loan amount.
- 2Demand
A request for repayment.
- 3Proceedings
Review of the repair-advance explanation.
- 4Judgment
Debt and interest awarded; litigation costs assessed.
⚖️ What was awarded
The operative part awards the loan debt, interest for the stated period and interest under Article 395 of the Russian Civil Code until execution of the judgment, together with the filing fee and representation costs. Part of the representation-cost claim was refused.
⚖️ What a creditor can learn from the case
The decisive issue in this case was comparing the specific receipt with the evidence and objections. Other dealings between the parties, such as repairs, did not replace evidence that the disputed money was payment for that work. Each payment and document needs to be examined separately in a similar dispute.
Useful materials include the receipt, evidence of transfers and repayments, correspondence, work-related documents where the defence refers to work, the demand and proof of dispatch, and a claim calculation. The redacted decision shows the reasoning in this case and does not promise the same outcome on different evidence.
⚖️ Read the judgment in PDF
The original redacted copy contains four pages with the parties’ positions, reasoning and operative part. The source document is in Russian.
Open the judgment of 13 December 2019 — PDF
⚖️ Questions about this case
Did the court find that no repairs had taken place?
No. The judgment says the claimant did not deny the work. The dispute concerned the purpose of the particular funds and the receipt’s wording.
Were all sums claimed awarded in full?
No. The debt and interest were awarded, but part of the representation costs was refused. The costs outcome is therefore reported separately from the loan outcome.
Is saying “it was payment for work” sufficient?
In this case that objection was not supported by evidence. A different dispute must be assessed against its own documents, payments and circumstances.
⚖️ Current provisions for a new dispute
Checked: 10 October 2026. Civil Code Article 808 permits a borrower’s receipt as loan-transfer evidence; written form between individuals is required above RUB 10,000. The historical judgment’s minimum-wage reference is not the current threshold.
Article 812 permits proving that loan funds were not received. Where written form is mandatory, witness evidence to challenge non-receipt is restricted, subject to express exceptions. An advance-payment explanation should therefore be connected to particular documents and payments.
Article 431 begins with the literal meaning of terms, then comparison with the contract and, where needed, the parties’ common intention in context. Under Article 395, current late-payment interest uses the key rate for the relevant periods unless a different amount follows from law or contract. Deposit rates mentioned in the historical copy cannot simply be reused for a new calculation.
| Document | What to compare |
|---|---|
| Receipt | Receipt of funds, repayment obligation, deadline and purpose |
| Repair materials | Agreement, stages, payments and connection to the disputed sum |
| Calculation | Late-payment periods, partial repayments and applicable rates |
| Costs | Payment, connection to proceedings and amount justified separately from the debt |
Can receipt of money be disputed after signing a receipt?
Article 812 permits this, but evidence and admissibility rules matter. This case lacked admissible and relevant proof that the receipt funds had not been received.
Why were representation costs only partly awarded?
The court considered complexity, one hearing with a break and document preparation. It refused part of the requested amount; redacted sums do not permit calculating the reduction percentage.
⚖️ Primary sources and related practice
The judgment is dated 13 December 2019; its final form is stated as 13 January 2020. The claimant’s representative was L. Z. Kozhevnikova and the judge O. S. Astapova. These details were checked against all four original pages; redacted sums and personal details are not reconstructed. The original sources are in Russian.
Compare the separate cases on power-of-attorney expenses and penalty counter-calculation. Their documents and legal grounds differ.
This text is for information only and is not legal advice. Document forms are used at your own risk and require review for the specific circumstances. This outcome does not guarantee another dispute’s result.