A man refuses to acknowledge a purported loan debt owed to PrivatBank amounting to 59,060 hryvnias.
PrivatBank seeks to recover a loan debt of 59,060 hryvnias from the man. However, he disputes the existence of any such credit obligation. This information stems from a ruling issued by the Podilskyi District Court of Kropyvnytskyi on August 13, 2025.
On February 12, 2014, the man signed an application form agreeing to the terms and conditions for banking services valid on the signing date and as displayed on the bank’s website. A card account was opened for him, and a credit card was issued with an initial credit limit, later increased to 50,000 hryvnias. He voluntarily used the card and accessed the credit funds. The client failed to provide PrivatBank with funds for repaying the loan principal and interest on time. Consequently, as of April 10, 2024, an outstanding debt of 59,060 hryvnias exists, comprising the following: 46,356 hryvnias as the principal loan sum (credit body); 12,703 hryvnias for overdue interest.
By a default judgment from the Leninskyi District Court of Kropyvnytskyi dated July 16, 2024, the claim was granted, ordering the man to pay PJSC Commercial Bank “PrivatBank” 59,060 hryvnias concerning credit agreement No. No. dated February 12, 2014. A ruling by the Leninskyi District Court of Kropyvnytskyi on February 27, 2025, upheld his application to review the July 16, 2024 default judgment, nullified that judgment, reinstated the period for filing a review petition, and scheduled the case for trial under simplified proceedings.
In his application to set aside the default judgment, the man contests the claim entirely, deeming it unfounded. He refutes owing any credit debt to PrivatBank, counter-asserting that his card account at PJSC CB “PrivatBank” holds an excess balance of 12,572 hryvnias, which the bank allegedly retains unlawfully and should refund. Regarding the case merits, he noted that the copy of the application form dated February 12, 2014, shows he agreed to services from PJSC CB “PrivatBank”, though specific interest rates, penalties, fees, or fines were absent; he personally signed the form. The case file contains another banking services agreement form dated November 10, 2020, and a consumer loan passport dated June 23, 2023, lacking his signature. No evidence proving receipt of credit cards exists in the case materials. Furthermore, the file lacks proof that the parties agreed on the material terms of the credit agreement, specifically the interest rate.
What was the Court’s decision?
The court partially satisfied the claim filed by PJSC Commercial Bank “PrivatBank”. The man is ordered to pay the financial institution 46,356 hryvnias for credit agreement No. No. dated February 12, 2014.
“The account transaction statement clearly demonstrates that the respondent was granted a credit limit and indeed used the funds, which consequently implies receipt of the credit card, as such transactions are infeasible without it. The statement further shows that the respondent utilized the credit funds and partially repaid the outstanding amount. Therefore, the respondent not only received the credit card but also implicitly consented to the credit agreement terms by performing actions aimed at fulfilling it. The case dossier includes a bank certificate indicating the credit card issued to the respondent, valid until 07/24. The respondent provided the court no proof of having fully met contractual repayment duties nor evidence refuting the plaintiff’s debt calculation. Considering the borrower’s failure to voluntarily repay the funds actually received and used from PJSC CB ‘PrivatBank’, the court concludes that recovery of the principal loan amount of 46,356 hryvnias from the respondent is warranted, as the bank possesses the right to seek protection of its rights by compelling the debtor to return the actual sum of borrowed funds,” the court emphasized.
