Contact center of the Ukrainian Judiciary 044 207-35-46
The borrower’s objection that the funds were in fact not received from the lender must be made in the form of a reasoned objection, and the burden of proving this circumstance lies specifically with the borrower. An expert’s conclusion that the signature on the receipt was “probably not made by the borrower” is not sufficient evidence of non-receipt of funds, as it does not have predetermined probative value, does not change the balance of evidence in the case, and does not refute the fact of the transfer of money.
These conclusions were reached by the Supreme Court sitting as the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court in order to ensure the uniformity of case law.
The case concerns a claim filed by the plaintiff to recover a loan debt in the amount of USD 25,000 from the defendant based on a receipt handwritten by the defendant. The defendant denied the conclusion of the loan agreement and the receipt of money, claiming that he had not signed the receipt. According to the results of two forensic handwriting examinations, it was established that the signature on the original receipt was probably made not by the defendant, but by another person.
The court of first instance dismissed the claim, considering the fact of concluding the loan agreement as unproven.
The appellate court, overturning the decision of the court of first instance and partially granting the claim, proceeded from the fact that the expert’s conclusion regarding the probability that the signature was made by someone other than the borrower is not decisive for resolving the case, since it does not provide a categorical answer to the question posed to the expert and does not change the balance of evidence. In addition, the presence of the original receipt with the plaintiff, in accordance with Article 545 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, indicates the debtor’s failure to fulfill the obligation to repay the debt.
The Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court and, in order to ensure the unity of judicial practice, made the following legal conclusions.
In this case, the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court had to answer the following legal questions:
1) Does an expert examination concluding that the signature on a handwritten receipt for receipt of a loan was probably made by the borrower confirm that the funds were in fact not received by the borrower from the lender?
2) In cases involving a claim for recovery of debt under a loan agreement, where the borrower disputes the fact of concluding the loan agreement, on whom exactly — the plaintiff (lender) or the defendant (borrower) — does the burden of proving the circumstance that the borrower did or did not sign the debt receipt lie?
According to Article 526 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, an obligation must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the requirements of this Code, other acts of civil legislation, and in the absence of such terms and requirements — in accordance with business customs or other commonly applicable requirements.
Article 204 of the Civil Code of Ukraine establishes the presumption of the validity of a transaction. Since a loan agreement is a real contract and is considered concluded from the moment the funds are transferred, the burden of proving that the borrower did not actually receive the money from the lender lies with the borrower.
By its nature, a receipt for borrowed funds is a document issued by the debtor to the creditor under a loan agreement, confirming both the conclusion of the agreement and its terms, as well as certifying the receipt from the creditor of a certain amount of money or items. A receipt is not a form of the agreement itself but can only confirm the conclusion of the loan agreement. In essence, the borrower’s receipt serves only as a substitute for the written form of the loan agreement, since it is signed solely by the borrower.
Civil proceedings are conducted on the basis of the adversarial principle of the parties (Part 1 of Article 12 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).
Along with a claim in a legal relationship, there is also an objection.
An objection is a specific sub-authority of a person participating in the relevant legal relationship to declare that such a person is not obligated to the claimant for a certain reason. Thus, an ipso jure objection relates to the groundlessness of another person’s claim (for example, an objection regarding the invalidity of a transaction), and such an objection may be applied even without a party’s reference to it. In contrast, an exception relates to a well-founded claim of another person (in particular, an objection regarding the statute of limitations).
Therefore, the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court clarified that the burden of proving that the funds were in fact not received lies specifically with the borrower. When a debt receipt is handwritten by the borrower, they must refute not only the authenticity of the signature but also the fact of the document’s execution and the receipt of the money using indisputable evidence.
When evaluating the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the significance of the expert examination, the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court stated that a conclusion about the “probability” that the signature on the receipt was made by another person neither confirms nor refutes the fact of receiving the loan. Such a conclusion answers only the question of the signature’s authenticity but does not change the balance of evidence in the case. The fact that the debt document is in the possession of the creditor indicates the debtor’s failure to fulfill the obligation.
Based on the above, the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court concluded: if the borrower has not provided categorical evidence of the forgery of the signature or the groundlessness of the creditor’s claims, the presumption of the conclusion of the loan agreement remains unrebutted, and the presence of the original receipt with the plaintiff is sufficient confirmation of the existence of the debt obligation.
Following the review, the defendant’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the ruling of the appellate court was left unchanged.
Resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated April 6, 2026, in case No. 368/1257/21 (proceedings No. 61-16707сво24) — https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/135994395
This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.
_03_03.png)