A court in Karagandy has ruled on a case involving a promissory note written 'for unforeseen circumstances': one party demanded repayment, while the other claimed they never received any money, reports infohub.kz.

According to the official Telegram channel of the Supreme Court, the court of the Bokeykhan district in Karagandy received cross claims: an initial lawsuit to recover funds under a loan agreement, and a counterclaim seeking to invalidate the transaction.

The plaintiff claimed that a loan agreement was concluded, under which the defendant received funds to pay off existing debts. As the loan was not repaid, the plaintiff sought recovery of the principal, penalties, and court costs.

The defendant disagreed and filed a counterclaim to void the promissory note. He stated that he never received the money. According to him, he had approached an individual entrepreneur (IE) for employment and signed a vehicle rental agreement. The promissory note was written at the IE’s instruction when signing the rental contract 'for unforeseen circumstances,' but no money actually changed hands. The defendant used the car for one day and then returned it. He only learned later about the alleged loan debt and the court order.

Under the law, a loan is a real contract and is considered concluded only when funds are actually transferred to the borrower. However, the plaintiff could not provide documentary evidence of the money transfer. Case materials confirmed that the promissory note was written without actual receipt of funds.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the disputed transaction violated legal requirements, including those regarding the composition of parties and freedom of consent. The agreement was between an IE and an individual, and granting a loan in this case contradicted statutory restrictions.

After evaluating all evidence, the court found no confirmation of actual money transfer. Therefore, the transaction underlying the promissory note is fictitious. The court dismissed the initial claim for recovery of funds and granted the counterclaim, declaring the transaction void (null and void) under Article 157, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code.

The civil panel of the Karagandy Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision and dismissed the appeal. The ruling has entered into force.