THE СOURT FOUND OUR POSITION JUSTIFIED AND REDUCED THE PENALTY DECLARED BY THE OPPONENT BY 23 TIMES

Citizen F* (Defendant), who was engaged in the sale of goods in the status of an individual entrepreneur, appealed to MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” to provide him with legal assistance in recovering debt from him for renting premises and penalties.

The circumstances of the case were such that in 2016 between citizen F* and the Landlord a premises lease agreement was concluded, the lease relations for which lasted six months. The first four months, rent payments were made by citizen “F” according to Bank details specified in the lease agreement. Two months before the end of the lease relationship, the head of the shopping center on behalf of the Landlord said that from that moment the funds should be transferred in cash, otherwise the lease agreement would be terminated. On the fifth month of rent funds in the amount of 65 000 RUB in the account of the last rent payments for the last two months were handed to the head of the shopping center to hand to the Landlord. Contractual relationship was completed and the parties signed Delivery-Acceptance Act. However, after 17 months, the Landlord filed a pre-trial claim to repay  the debt for the last two months of the lease in the amount of  65 000 RUB, as well as penalties in the amount of 707 900 RUB  charged in accordance with the terms of the contract.  Subsequently, the Landlord filed a statement of claim against F* with similar requirements.

Due to the fact that our Principal F* did not have evidence of cash transfer for the last two months of the lease relationship, the head of the shopping center did not issue a receipt for cash, the lease agreement and Delivery-Acceptance Act were signed by the parties, so it seemed objectively impossible to prove the absence of rent payments. There was a task to reduce the penalty claimed by the Plaintiff, declaring its decrease according to article 333 of the Civil Code, article 404 of the Civil Code and referring to abuse of right.

The employees of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” prepared and filed in Court motivated written objections to the claim with a detailed justification of the disproportion of the penalty, including arguments about the abuse of the plaintiff’s right to deliberately delay of the moment the claim was filed to increase the penalty amount, about dishonesty of the Plaintiff for failure to fulfill the obligation to present and sign the reconciliation certificate of mutual settlements between the parties provided by the Act on the return of the premises, about affiliation of the Plaintiff and the head of the territory of the shopping center, who received cash payment for the rent of premises (taking into account data from the SPARK and CASEBOOK systems), which indicates the coordination of the actions and will of these persons with additional confirmation of the transfer of cash under the lease agreement by audio recording of the telephone conversation between the Principal and the Landlord, made on our recommendation during the trial, the completion of the status of an individual entrepreneur F* in connection with the receipt of disability six months before the filing of the claim, as well as other arguments and evidence.

At the hearing of Kuzminsky District Court of Moscow we detailed each of the above arguments, the Plaintiff was asked a number of uncomfortable and unexpected questions regarding his dishonesty.

During the trial, Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow agreed with our legal position and reduced the penalty amount from 707 900 RUB, which was declared by the Plaintiff, to 30000 RUB,  and this is more than 23 times.

The position on this case was prepared by assistant of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” A.D Budkevich.

Assistant of MCBA “Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” A.D Budkevich represented the Defendant’s interests in the court of the first instance