№ 2 - 1742 / 17

Name Russian Federation

Privolzhsky District Court of Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, consisting of

presiding judge - Kiyamova R.Kh.,

with the participation of the representative Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) - Khayalina A.I.,

under the secretary - Volkova T.A.,

having considered in open court a civil case at the suit of the Public joint-stock company National Bank "TRUST" to Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) on the recovery of debt on loan agreement, counterclaim Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) to the Public Joint Stock Company National Bank "TRUST" on the protection of consumer rights,

SET UP:

Public Joint Stock Company National Bank "TRUST" (hereinafter in the case of PJSC NB "TRUST" - the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Sabirova R.M. (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement, indicating that DD.MM.YYYY NB «TRUST» (PJSC) and Sabirova R.M. entered into Agreement No. (hereinafter in the case - Agreement 2), payment card agreement) on the basis and conditions of the client's application - offer, on the basis of which a loan agreement was also concluded (hereinafter in the case - Agreement 1).

The plaintiff asks the court to recover from the defendant Sabirova R.M. the amount of debt under loan agreement No. in the amount of rubles, the cost of paying the state fee in the amount of rubles.

During the consideration of the case, it turned out that Sabirova R.M. changed her personal data, so according to the certificate of change of the name of the series No. dated February 15, 2016, Sabirova R.M. DD.MM.YYYY of the year of birth changed her surname, name, patronymic to - Vakhitova Z.M. , about which DD.MM.YYYY a record of the act of changing the name for No. was made in the Department of the Civil Registry Office of the IK MO of Kazan in the Privolzhsky District of Kazan of the Republic of Tatarstan.

During the trial the representative of the defendant Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) filed a counterclaim against the bank for the protection of consumer rights, in which he asked the court to invalidate the terms of the loan agreement No. insurance premium for connecting to the Insurance Program under a loan agreement, on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of a part of the transaction, requested to recover from the bank in favor of the client as unjust enrichment in the amount of a ruble, compensation moral damage in the amount of rubles, a fine of 50% of the amount awarded in favor of the consumer.

The representative of the plaintiff NB "TRUST" (PJSC) did not appear in court, there is a statement about the consideration of the case without his participation, while they submitted an objection to the counterclaim, in which they asked the court to leave the counterclaims unsatisfied, applying the deadline limitation period.

The representative of the defendant Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) recognized the claims of the bank in court, supported the counterclaim.

After listening to the explanations of the representative of the defendant Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) and having examined the written materials of the case, the court comes to the following.

In accordance with Art. 309 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be properly performed in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, other legal acts, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements, in accordance with the customs of business transactions or other usually imposed requirements.

According to Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a loan agreement, a bank or other credit organisation(creditor) undertakes to provide funds - a loan to the borrower in the amount and on the terms stipulated by the agreement, and the borrower undertakes to return the amount of money received and pay interest on it.

Paragraph 2 of the above article provides that the norms of Articles 809-818 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation apply to relations under a loan agreement.

According to Art. 809 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided by law or the loan agreement, the lender has the right to receive interest from the borrower on the loan amount in the amount and in the manner specified in the agreement.

According to Art. 811 part 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in installments (in installments), then if the borrower violates the deadline set for the return of the next part of the loan, the lender has the right to demand early repayment of the entire remaining loan amount together with the interest due.

The court found that DD.MM.YYYY NB «TRUST» (PJSC) and Sabirova R.M. entered into Agreement No. (Agreement 2), Payment Card Agreement) on the basis and conditions of the client’s application – offer, on the basis of which a loan agreement was also concluded (Agreement 1).

Contracts 1 and 2 are concluded in an offer-acceptance form, in accordance with the provisions of Art. Articles 428, 432, 435 and 438 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The loan under agreement 1 was provided on the terms and conditions contained in the application for a loan, the Terms and Conditions for the provision and servicing of loans, Tariffs.

At the same time, the Application for a loan also contained an offer from the client to conclude a mixed agreement with him, containing elements of an agreement on opening a bank account, an agreement on providing in use bank card(payment card agreement, agreement 2) in accordance with the terms of provision and servicing of international payment bank cards of TRUST Bank, Tariffs for the international payment bank card of TRUST Bank, as well as other documents containing credit conditions.

In the application, the borrower agreed that the acceptance of his offer to conclude agreement 1 is the actions of the creditor to open an account and a special card account for him, and the Terms, Tariffs and Payment Schedule are an integral part of the application and agreement 1.

In the application, the borrower also expressed his agreement with the conditions on the payment card, the Tariffs on the payment card, undertook to comply with them and asked the bank to conclude a payment card agreement with him, under which, in accordance with the Conditions on the payment card, open a bank account for him and provide him with an international settlement bank card of TRUST Bank (PJSC) with an allowed overdraft limit.

According to clause 2.1 of the Payment Card Terms, the bank concludes an agreement with the client by accepting the client's offer contained in the application by opening the SCA. At the same time, the bank accepts the client's offer to issue a card by issuing a card. The date of conclusion of the agreement is the date of activation of the card by the client.

In connection with the conclusion of the agreement 1 by the bank and the borrower, the borrower receives a payment card, with the terms of use of which he agreed in advance. Subsequently, the borrower can activate this payment card at will, thereby concluding another agreement – ​​agreement 2 (payment card agreement).

The Bank fulfilled its obligations. When concluding agreement 1, the defendant received a payment card No. with a limit of allowed overdraft on the following grounds:

The size of the allowed overdraft limit: rubles,

Interest on the loan: 51.10% per annum.

Payment card validity period: 36 months.

Thus, the bank and the borrower, by mutual agreement, entered into a mixed agreement (Agreement 2), which was assigned No.

In accordance with clause 5.10 of the Payment Card Terms, the client is obliged to repay the debt by paying at least minimum amount repayment during the payment period following the billing period.

In violation of the Terms and Conditions on the payment card and the provisions of the law, the defendant does not undertake and continues to evade the fulfillment of the obligations assumed for the planned repayment current debt under contract 2, which is confirmed by account statements.

When analyzing the terms of this agreement, the court proceeds from Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which citizens and legal entities are free to conclude a contract and takes into account the rules of clause 1 of article 422 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which provide for the mandatory compliance of the contract with the imperative rules of law in force at the time of its conclusion.

The court found that the agreement between the parties complies with both the requirements of Articles 819, 820 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 30 of the Federal Law “On Banks and banking”, which regulates the essential terms of the loan agreement, including the reflection in the loan agreement of interest rates on loans, the cost of banking services, the timing of their performance, as well as liability for violation of obligations on the timing of payments.

The court established that the defendant repeatedly violated the terms of the contract regarding the term for the return of the loan received by her, the payment of interest.

The Court concludes that since Sabirova R.M. (Vakhitova Z.M.), in violation of the terms of the agreement, the amounts to repay the loan, the amount of interest for using the loan, were not paid within the established time limits, this circumstance is the basis for the creditor's claims for early repayment of the entire remaining loan amount and the corresponding interest.

The defendant's debt to the plaintiff for the period from 27.08.2013g. to 06.02.2017 is in the amount of rubles, including: the amount of the principal debt - a ruble, interest for using the loan - rubles.

In accordance with Art. 56 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the content of which should be considered in the context of the provisions of paragraph 3 of Art. 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Art. 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, which establish the principles of adversarial civil proceedings and the principle of equality of the parties, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided by federal law.

The court finds this calculation correct, not contrary to the law and consistent with the contract.

The accrued amounts of debt are confirmed by the loan agreement, account statement, and the provisions of the agreement and calculation comply with current legislation.

Defendant court evidence repayment of said debt is not presented.

The argument of the representative of the defendant Sabirova P.M. (Vakhitova Z.M.) in a counterclaim that the client, when concluding a loan agreement, did not need an insurance service and the insurance agreement was not drawn up, the court considers unreasonable.

The court found that Sabirova R.M. (Vakhitova Z.M.), of her own free will and acting in her own interests, concluded a loan agreement with the bank, at the conclusion of this agreement she was familiarized with the terms of the agreement and agreed with them, putting her signature, a copy of this agreement was received by her on the day of signing, thus, each party to the agreement assumed the risk of executing the loan agreement.

The Court considers that the change financial situation the borrower is not one of those circumstances, the occurrence of which could not be foreseen, and also that the defendant was not deprived of the opportunity to obtain a loan (loan) from another person and on other conditions, including at a lower interest rate.

The case materials include a loan agreement, which was agreed upon by the parties and signed. Evidence confirming the exclusion of the borrower's ability to influence the terms of the loan agreement is not available in the case file.

Based on paragraph 1 of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is not allowed to exercise civil rights solely with the intention to harm another person, to circumvent the law with an unlawful purpose, as well as other obviously unfair exercise of civil rights (abuse of the right).

At the same time, there is no objective evidence that the bank acted with an unlawful purpose or knowingly exercised its civil rights in bad faith, in the case file.

The materials of the case do not contain data suggesting that at the time of the transaction, the defendant was in a difficult life situation, which the bank took advantage of, persuading her to complete the transaction.

The Court considers that Sabirova R.M. (Vakhitova Z.M.) admissible and relevant evidence of a violation by the bank of the borrower's rights when concluding a loan agreement was not presented to the court.

The case materials, containing a copy of the loan file, confirm the fact that the client was familiarized with the procedure for repaying the loan, the amount of monthly payments, information about the full cost of the loan and the payment schedule against signature, the procedure and terms of calculation are set out in the terms of the contract.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citizens acquire and exercise their civil rights by their own will and in their own interest. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citizens exercise their civil rights at their own discretion. The conscientiousness of the participants in civil legal relations and the reasonableness of their actions are assumed (clause 5, article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Entering into credit obligations as a borrower is the free discretion of a citizen and is associated solely with his personal will.

The essence of the relationship associated with the receipt and use of financial credit resources, in any case, implies the presence of a share of justified risk. Entering into credit relations, acting reasonably and prudently, a citizen must assess his solvency, show the necessary degree of care and discretion in relation to the chosen form of receipt and use Money.

The circumstances of the case do not indicate that at the time of the conclusion of the contract the borrower was limited in the freedom to conclude the contract, or she was not provided with sufficient information. The content of the contract, personally signed by the borrower, who received copies of the documents, made it possible to determine the amount of her obligation under the contract, as well as the procedure and terms for its execution, the amount of responsibility for non-fulfillment of the obligations assumed.

Based on the foregoing, the actions of the bank when concluding a loan agreement do not contradict paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights".

Based on the fact that the defendant repeatedly violated the deadlines for fulfilling obligations under the loan agreement in accordance with the payment schedule, there is a debt under the loan agreement, the court considers the stated claims to be justified and subject to satisfaction, a debt in the amount of rubles.

Counterclaims Sabirova R.M. (Vakhitova ZM) to the bank on the protection of consumer rights shall be left without satisfaction, based on the following.

As established in court, the counterclaim was brought by the representative of the defendant during the trial DD.MM.YYYY .

TRUST Bank (PJSC) submitted a written objection to the counterclaims of R.M. Sabirova to the court. (Vakhitova Z.M.), in which a petition was filed for the borrower to miss the limitation period.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the total limitation period is three years from the date determined in accordance with Article 200 of this Code.

According to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise provided by law, the limitation period begins from the day when the person knew or should have known about the violation of his right and about who is the proper defendant in the claim for the protection of this right.

For obligations with a certain performance period, the limitation period begins at the end of the performance period.

By virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is applied by the court only at the request of a party to the dispute, made before the court makes a decision. The expiration of the limitation period, the application of which is declared by the party to the dispute, is the basis for the court to issue a decision to dismiss the claim.

Clause 1 of Article 207 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that with the expiration of the limitation period for the main claim, the limitation period for additional claims (interest, penalty, pledge, surety, etc.), including those arising after the expiration of the claim statute of limitations on the main requirement.

The loan agreement between the parties was concluded on August 28, 2012, and the counterclaim was filed only on April 11, 2017, but no evidence was presented to the court that the borrower had missed the limitation period.

Thus, the actions of the bank when concluding a loan agreement do not contradict the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights", and the court concludes that the borrower missed the limitation period, and therefore, the client's counterclaims against the bank on consumer protection are subject to dissatisfaction.

Thus, the bank's claim is subject to satisfaction, the debt under loan agreement No. in the amount of rubles is subject to recovery from the defendant in favor of the bank, and the borrower's counterclaim against the bank on consumer protection is subject to rejection.

According to Art. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court awards to the party in whose favor the decision was made, to reimburse on the other side all incurred in the case court expenses in proportion to the satisfaction of the court claims.

Claimant when filing statement of claim the state fee was paid, which is confirmed by a payment order.

Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. Art. 12, 56, 194-198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court,

The claim of the Public Joint Stock Company National Bank "TRUST" to Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) to satisfy the debt collection under the loan agreement.

Collect from Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) in favor of TRUST Bank (PJSC) the amount of debt under loan agreement No. in the amount of rubles, the cost of paying the state fee in the amount of rubles.

Counterclaim Vakhitova Z.M. (Sabirova R.M.) to the Public Joint Stock Company National Bank "TRUST" on the protection of consumer rights, namely: on the invalidation of the terms of the loan agreement No. dated August 28, 2012, according to which the borrower is obliged to pay the insurance premium for connecting to the Program insurance under a loan agreement, on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of a part of the transaction, on the recovery from the bank in favor of it as unjust enrichment in the amount of a ruble, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of rubles, a fine of 50% of the amount awarded in favor of the consumer to be left unsatisfied.

The decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan within 1 month from the date of issuance of a reasoned decision through the Privolzhsky District Court of Kazan.

Referee: Kiyamov R.Kh.

SOLUTION

In the name of the Russian Federation

Pavlovo-Posad City Court of the Moscow Region, consisting of: the presiding judge Ryakin S.E., with the secretary Parshenkova N.I., with the participation of the plaintiff Kartseva O.A., the representative of the plaintiff Kartsev A.A., the representative of JSC National Bank Trust » Ivanik E.P., having considered in open court a civil case No. 2-645 / 2013 on the claim of Kartseva Oksana Anatolyevna against OJSC National Bank Trust on consumer rights protection,

Installed:

Kartseva O.A. indicates that on 07/05/2012. between it and OJSC "National Bank "TRUST" concluded an agreement No. for the amount of rubles. A prerequisite for issuing a loan under the Agreement was lump sum commission for crediting credit funds to the client's account, which amounted to 5,990 rubles. As part of this loan she was issued two cards: card 1 - No. (clause 3 of the agreement) and card 2-No. (clause 4 of the agreement).

03.12.2012 Kartseva O. A. contacted the call center to clarify the amounts for early repayment of the loan on two bank cards 1 and 2. The operator told her the amounts for early repayment and the date until which these amounts are valid, namely: on card 1- the amount was RUB. kop., on the card 2 - the amount of early repayment amounted to rubles. kopecks, maturity date is December 24, 2013.

04.12.2012 to the cash desk of the Operational office "Paveletsky" of the city of Moscow, located at the address: Moscow, st. Valovaya, d. 11/19, Kartseva O.A. paid the money in full. After payment, she turned to an employee of the bank, Evgeny, who gave Kartseva O.A. application form for closing an account on a card 2. She handed over both bank cards to him.

27.12.2012 Kartseva O.A. came to the same branch of the bank where she made full repayment funds on bank cards, where she found out that she had a debt in the amount of 235 rubles. When asked when this debt could have been formed, the bank employees did not answer. On the same day Kartseva Oh.A. wrote a statement of their disagreement with this withholding.

By e-mail, she received a response from the bank, according to which Kartseva O.A. should have paid not Rs. 11 kop., and rub. 28 kop. As indicated in the answer, this amount consisted of the following payments: RUB. 87 kop. - main debt; rub. 41 kop. - interest on the loan; 390 rub. - Penalty for missing the payment of the minimum monthly payment.

Kartseva O.A. disagreed with this amount of the fine, t.to. the period of its accrual was not indicated, for which payment it was accrued and why the bank did not notify her of the presence of a fine.

27.12.2012 Kartseva O.A. was issued a certificate of closure of the loan agreement No. 23.07.2012, which stated that as of 27.12.2012. She has no debt, the loan agreement is closed. However, up to now, mobile phone Kartseva O.A. come SMS messages about her debt to the bank, which is growing and today amounts to 1315 rubles. 14 kop. Kartseva O.A. contacted the bank's call center with a question about what kind of debt it was, the bank replied that she did not pay monthly minimum payment, therefore, the bank accrues fines, which at that time amounted to an amount of 1315 rubles. 14 kop.

The application form for a loan for urgent needs is provided in the form developed by OJSC NB TRUST, which excludes any influence of the consumer Kartseva O.A. to determine the terms of the contract.

The loan agreement was signed for established by the bank conditions, to make any changes to the contract, Kartseva Oh.A. didn't have the opportunity.

The specified provisions of the loan agreement, which provide for the conditions for paying a commission for crediting funds to the client’s account, contained onerous conditions for the borrower of an individual, which, based on reasonably understood interests, would not have been accepted by Kartseva O.A., if she had the opportunity to participate in determining the terms of the contract.

The norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation do not make the provision of a loan to an individual dependent on the opening of a settlement or other account for the borrower and does not entail the automatic conclusion of a bank account agreement.

The fee for crediting funds is actually an additional interest rate - which the borrower must pay.

According to Kartseva O.A. the bank is obliged, when concluding loan agreements, to bring to the attention of the borrower in an understandable language, all the necessary and reliable information about the cost of services and their properties.

The terms of the loan agreement on the payment by the Borrower of the commission for settlement services, as well as the commission for crediting funds to the account, violate its rights.

By their actions, the bank caused Kartseva Oh.A. moral suffering, tk. up to the present time he demands from her the money that she has already paid him and returns her overpaid money to her. She is experiencing in the current situation, experiencing moral suffering.

Kartseva O.A. asks the court: Recognize n. 1.16. loan agreement No. dated 23.07.2012. on the collection of commission for crediting funds received from the Client (at a time) invalid. Recognize as revoked her consent received by JSC "National Bank TRUST" on the application form for the conclusion of the Agreement on the issuance of servicing a bank card dated July 23, 2012. Close the accounts of Kartseva O.A., which were opened in the branches of the bank "National Bank "TRUST" ; collect from JSC National Bank TRUST in favor of the Client the amount of commission for crediting credit funds to the Client's account in the amount of 5990 rubles; illegally withheld funds in the amount of 154 RUB. 83 kop., interest for the use of other people's money in the amount of 327 rubles. 20 kopecks, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 10,000 rubles; payment of legal expenses in the amount of 30,000 rubles; payment for drawing up a statement of claim in the amount of 4,800 rubles, payment for notary services in the amount of 1,300 rubles, collect in her favor a fine in the amount of fifty percent of the amount, awarded by the court in favor of the consumer.

At the hearing the plaintiff Kartseva Oh.A. supported the claims.

The representative of the defendant JSC «National Bank «TRUST» Ivanik E.P. submitted a review, the claim is not recognized, explained that the bank did not violate consumer rights Kartseva Oh.A. The defendant's representative failed to explain why the bank 27.12.2012g. Kartseva O.A. was issued a certificate of closure of the loan agreement No. 23.07.2012, which stated that as of 27.12.2012. debt from Kartseva Oh.A. absent, the loan agreement is closed.

After hearing the plaintiff, the representative of the defendant, having checked the case materials, the court finds that the claims are reasonable and subject to partial satisfaction on the following grounds:

In accordance with 4.1 Art. 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided by federal law.

The court found that on 05.07.2012g. between OJSC National Bank TRUST and Kartseva Oh.A. signed loan agreement No. for the amount of RUB. A prerequisite for issuing a loan under the Agreement was a one-time payment of a commission for crediting credit funds to the client's account, which amounted to 5,990 rubles. Within the framework of this loan Kartseva O.A. two cards were issued: card 1 - No. (clause 3 of the agreement) and card 2 - No. (clause 4 of the agreement).

All banking documents are signed only by Kartseva O.A. There are no seals of the bank and signatures of its representatives.

27.12.2012 Kartseva O.A. issued a certificate of closing the loan agreement No. 23.07.2012, which states that as of 27.12.2012. she has no debt to the bank, the loan agreement is closed.

According to the calculation of the debt credit card as of May 14, 2013 the accumulated debt of interest for the use of the loan is 235 rubles. 14 kop. The representative of JSC «National Bank «TRUST» failed to explain to the court why the bank did not transfer the funds for their repayment from the funds paid by Kartseva Oh.A. for loan repayment.

By virtue of Art. 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citizens and legal entities are free to conclude a contract. The terms of the contract are determined at the discretion of the parties, unless the content of the relevant terms is prescribed by law or other legal acts.

In accordance with Art. 422 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the contract must comply with the rules binding on the parties, established by law and other legal acts (mandatory law) in force at the time of its conclusion.

According to Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On Protection of Consumer Rights”, the terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer protection are recognized as invalid. It is prohibited to condition the purchase of some goods (works, services) on the obligatory purchase of other goods (works, services), which took place in relation to the Borrower (plaintiff). Losses caused to the consumer as a result of violation of his right to free choice of goods (works, services) are reimbursed by the seller (executor) in full.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 4-P dated February 23, 1999 indicated that a citizen in legal relations with a bank is an economically weak party and needs special protection of his rights, which entails the need to limit the freedom of contract of a credit institution (bank).

According to Part 1 of Art. 428 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an accession agreement is a contract, the terms of which are determined by one of the parties in formularies or other standard forms and could be accepted by the other party only by joining the proposed agreement as a whole.

The application form for a loan for urgent needs is provided in the form developed by OJSC NB TRUST, which excludes any influence of Kartseva O.A. to determine the terms of the contract. The loan agreement was concluded on the conditions established by the defendant; she could not make any changes to the agreement.

The specified provisions of the loan agreement, which provide for the conditions for paying a commission for crediting funds to the client's account, contain onerous conditions for the borrower of an individual, which, based on reasonably understood interests, would not be accepted by Kartseva O.A., if she had the opportunity to participate in determining the terms of the contract.

The norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation do not make the provision of a loan to an individual dependent on the opening of a settlement or other account of the borrower and does not entail the automatic conclusion of a bank account agreement.

According to Art. 30 of the Federal Law of 02.12.1990. 395-1 "On banks and banking activities", opening a bank account is a right, not an obligation of citizens.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, payment under a loan agreement is the payment of interest on the loan amount. This interest is a payment to the bank for a set of actions performed during the issuance of a loan and its repayment by the borrower, must cover both its expenses and include the bank's income from this operation.

Likewise, the provisions of Art. 807, 809 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation do not contain the concept of "credit credit, settlement service", in accordance with Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, actions to provide and service a loan are the responsibility of the bank under the loan agreement.

Regulation Central Bank of the Russian Federation dated August 31, 1998 No. 54-P “On the procedure for the provision of funds by credit institutions and their return (repayment), the payment of any additional services when issuing a loan and repaying it by the borrower is also not provided, as well as opening and maintenance of a special account of the borrower.

Thus, the fee for crediting funds is actually an additional interest rate that the borrower must pay.

In accordance with Art. 9 of the Federal Law of January 26, 1996 No. 15-FZ "On the Enactment of Part Two of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation" in cases where one of the parties to the obligation is a citizen using, acquiring, ordering, or intending to purchase or order goods (works, services for personal household needs, such a citizen enjoys the rights of a party to an obligation in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the rights granted to the consumer by the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Protection of Consumer Rights" and issued in accordance with other legal acts.

According to paragraph 1 pp. "d", paragraph 3 of the resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2012 No. 17 “On the consideration by the courts of cases on disputes on the protection of consumer rights” when considering civil cases: courts should take into account that relations, one of the parties to which is a citizen using, acquiring, ordering, or having the intention to acquire or order goods (works, services) exclusively for family, household, household and other needs not related to entrepreneurial activities, and the other - an organization (manufacturer, performer, seller, importer) providing services that are relations regulated by the Civil Code Russian Federation. Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. No. 2300-1 "On consumer protection", others federal laws and other normative legal acts of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with them.

In accordance with Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights" it is prohibited to condition the purchase of certain goods (works, services) on the obligatory purchase of other goods (works, services).

However, according to Art. 10 of the same law, the contractor is obliged to provide the consumer with the necessary and reliable information about the services provided in a timely manner. This information in a clear and accessible form is brought to the attention of the consumer when concluding contracts for the provision of services in the ways adopted in certain areas of service. In part 4 of Art. 12 of the Law states that the consumer's lack of special knowledge is assumed. Consequently, the borrower, due to his lack of special knowledge in the field of banking legislation, cannot know about the legality or illegality of certain conditions of loan agreements. In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the reasonableness of actions and the voluntariness of participants in civil legal relations is assumed.

It follows from this that the Bank was obliged, when concluding loan agreements, to bring to the attention of the borrower in an understandable form, all the necessary and reliable information about the cost of services and their properties - but did not. The court found that the bank documents available in the case, information about tariffs and conditions are printed in small print, which makes it difficult to read and understand them.

By virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Protection of Consumer Rights", the terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer protection are recognized as invalid.

The norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law “On Banks and Banking Activity”, other regulatory legal acts do not provide for the possibility of charging a fee in the form of a commission for crediting funds when granting a loan to individuals, and therefore the terms of the loan agreement on payment of commission for settlement service is contrary to the provisions of Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights".

According to the provision of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction that does not comply with the requirements of the law or other legal acts is void, unless the law establishes that such a transaction is voidable, or does not provide for other consequences of the violation.

The terms of the loan agreements on the payment by the Borrower of the commission for settlement services, as well as the commission for crediting funds to the client's account, violate the consumer's rights established by law and by virtue of Articles 168. 180 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights" and are invalid (insignificant).

In accordance with the provisions of Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 2 of Art. 1107 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, interest is charged for the use of other people's funds from the time when the acquirer found out or should have found out about the unreasonableness of receiving or saving money.

Interest for illegal use by the Defendant of the Borrower's funds under the loan agreement No. dated 23.07.2012. amount to 327 rubles. 20 kopecks. According to the calculation of interest presented by the plaintiff (calculation of the amount of debt is carried out taking into account the legal position set forth in the Decree of the Presidium of the BAS RF No. 5451/09 dated September 22, 2009): The amount of debt is 5,999 rubles. 0 kop., including VAT 0% 0 rub. 0 kop. Overdue period from 07/23/2012 to 03/20/2013: 238 (days). Refinancing rate: 8.25%. Total interest for the period = (5999) * 238 * 8.25 / 36000 = 327 rubles. 20 kop.

By virtue of Art. 15 of the Law "On the Protection of Consumer Rights", moral damage caused to the consumer as a result of a violation by the manufacturer (executor, authorized organization) of the consumer's rights provided for by the laws and legal acts of the Russian Federation regulating relations in the field of consumer protection, is subject to compensation by the tortfeasor in the presence of his fault. The amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court and does not depend on the amount of compensation for property damage. Compensation for moral damage is carried out regardless of compensation for property damage and losses incurred by the consumer.

By their actions, the bank caused Kartseva Oh.A. moral suffering, expressed in feelings due to the current situation, until now the bank demands the money that she paid him and does not return the overpaid money, sends SMS messages to her mobile phone.

In accordance with Art. 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if a citizen has been inflicted moral harm (physical or moral suffering) by actions that violate his personal non-property rights, or encroach on other non-material benefits belonging to the citizen, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the court may impose on the violator the obligation of monetary compensation for the specified harm.

In accordance with Art. 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, when determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the court takes into account: the nature of the physical and moral suffering caused to the victim, the degree of guilt of the tortfeasor, the actual circumstances under which the harm was caused, the individual characteristics of the victim, as well as reasonableness and justice. Therefore, taking into account reasonableness and sufficiency, the court reduces the amount of non-pecuniary damage to be recovered to 5,000 rubles. 00 kop.

In accordance with paragraph 6 of Art. 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On Protection of Consumer Rights”, when the court satisfies the consumer’s requirements established by law, the court collects from the manufacturer (executor, seller, authorized organization) for non-compliance with the consumer’s requirements on a voluntary basis, a fine in the amount of fifty percent of the amount awarded by the court in favor of consumer, which is 5 736 RUB. 01 kop.

In accordance with Article 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court awards the party in whose favor the court decision was made to reimburse all court expenses incurred in the case on the other side.

The plaintiff's costs for legal services amounted to: drawing up a statement of claim - 4,800 rubles.

In accordance with Art. 100 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation to the party in whose favor the court decision was held, the court awards, on the other hand, the costs of paying for the services of a representative within reasonable limits.

According to the order agreement No. 85/19-03-13 dated March 19, 2013. expenses for representation in court - 30,000 rubles. subject to recovery in part in the amount of - 15 000 RUB. given the complexity of the case and the number of court hearings.

Notarial services for drawing up a power of attorney to represent interests
court - 1300 rubles. payable in full.

In accordance with Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation from the defendant to income local budget subject to
recovery costs state duty in the amount of 688 RUB. 32 kop.

Based on the foregoing, guided by Articles 194-198 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court

Decided:

The claim of Kartseva Oksana Anatolyevna to the Open Joint Stock Company "National Bank "Trust" on the protection of consumer rights is partially satisfied.

Recognize paragraph 1.16. loan agreement No. dated 23.07.2012. on the collection of a commission for crediting funds to the Client's account (at a time) invalid.

To recognize as revoked the consent of Kartseva Oksana Anatolyevna, received by National Bank TRUST OJSC on the application-questionnaire for the conclusion of the Agreement for the issuance and maintenance of a bank card dated 23.07.2012.

Close the accounts of Kartseva Oksana Anatolyevna, which were opened in the branches of the bank JSC "National Bank" TRUST ".

To recover from JSC National Bank TRUST in favor of Oksana Anatolyevna Kartseva the amount of commission for crediting credit funds to the Client's account in the amount of 5,990 (five thousand nine hundred ninety) rubles.

To recover from OJSC National Bank TRUST in favor of Oksana Anatolyevna Kartseva, illegally withheld funds in the amount of 154 (one hundred and fifty four) rubles 83 kopecks.

To recover from JSC National Bank TRUST in favor of Oksana Anatolyevna Kartseva interest for the use of other people's funds in the amount of 327 (three hundred twenty-seven) rubles 20 kopecks.

To collect compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 5,000 (five thousand) rubles 00 kopecks from JSC National Bank TRUST in favor of Oksana Anatolyevna Kartseva.

To recover from JSC National Bank TRUST in favor of Oksana Anatolyevna Kartseva a fine in the amount of fifty percent of the amount awarded by the court in favor of the consumer in the amount of 5,736 rubles 01 kopecks.

To recover from JSC National Bank TRUST in favor of Oksana Anatolyevna Kartseva the payment for notarial services in the amount of 1300 (one thousand three hundred rubles.

To recover legal fees in the amount of 15,000 (fifteen thousand) rubles from OAO National Bank TRUST in favor of Oksana Anatolyevna Kartseva.

To recover from OJSC National Bank TRUST in favor of Oksana Anatolyevna Kartseva the payment for drawing up a statement of claim in the amount of 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred) rubles.

The rest of the claims of Kartseva Oksana Anatolyevna are denied.

To collect from JSC "National Bank "TRUST" in favor of the local budget a state duty in the amount of 688 rubles 32 kopecks.

The decision can be appealed by the parties on appeal to the Moscow Regional Court, through the court that accepted it, within a month.

presiding: S.E. Ryakin

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

in case No. 2-2025/2015

04/30/2015 Samara

Industrial District Court of Samara consisting of:

presiding judge C.N. Lansky

under the secretary Almukhamedova E.A.,

Having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of the Open Joint Stock Company National Bank "<данные изъяты>» to FULL NAME2 for the recovery of debt under a loan agreement, on a counterclaim FULL NAME2 to the Open Joint Stock Company National Bank «<данные изъяты>» on the recognition of the loan agreement as invalid in part, the recovery of funds,

installed:

The plaintiff went to court with the above claim against the defendant, in support of their claims indicating that DD.MM.YYYY. between the plaintiff and FULL NAME2 concluded loan agreement № from DD.MM.YYYY. about granting<данные изъяты>rub., the contract is concluded in an offer-acceptance form. The loan under the agreement was granted on the terms and conditions contained in the loan application, Purchase Loan Conditions vehicle, bank rates. The loan was granted in the amount<данные изъяты>. under<данные изъяты>per annum for a period<данные изъяты>months for the purchase of a vehicle-bus brand "<данные изъяты> <данные изъяты>

In confirmation of the fact of concluding a loan agreement, the bank transferred<данные изъяты>rub. to the account of the borrower № №, which is confirmed by the statement of the account. FULL NAME2 in confirmation of the use of the target loan for the intended purpose handed over to the bank the original PTS.

In breach of contract, defendant commitments made does not fulfill, violates the debt repayment schedule. As of DD.MM.YYYY, the defendant's debt to the plaintiff amounted to<данные изъяты>., including: principal amount<данные изъяты>., interest on the loan<данные изъяты>., interest on the overdue principal<данные изъяты>., penalty for missed payments-<данные изъяты>

He asked: 1) to recover from the defendant in his favor the loan debt in the amount of<данные изъяты>and the cost of paying the fee in the amount<данные изъяты>.; 2) to levy execution on the vehicle-bus brand "<данные изъяты>”, DD.MM.YYYY year of manufacture, VIN<данные изъяты>, to meet the requirements of the bank under the loan agreement.

FULL NAME2 represented by a representative by proxy FULL NAME7 filed a counterclaim against OAO NB "<данные изъяты>» on the recognition of the terms of the loan agreement dated DD.MM.YYYY. as regards the payment of the commission for settlement and cash services and the insurance premium as invalid, the recovery from the bank in its favor of the paid commissions in the amount<данные изъяты>. and insurance premium in the amount<данные изъяты>. In support of the counterclaim, pointing out that the insurance contract was concluded between the bank and the insurance company, the insurance contract between the bank and the borrower was not concluded. FULL NAME2 is not a party under the insurance contract concluded between the bank and the insurance company, but in fact is the insured person. The current legislation does not provide for the obligation of the borrower to compensate the bank's expenses for paying insurance premiums to the insurer in the event that the bank insures the life, health or property of the borrower.

Insurance is an independent service in relation to lending, the payment of an insurance premium under a life, health or property insurance contract of the borrower is the responsibility of the insured himself, which is NB OJSC<данные изъяты>”, and not the insured person - full name5 insurance in accordance with the tariffs of insurance, is a condition that infringes on the rights of the consumer, as it imposes on the borrower the obligation to pay for services that are not actually provided to him. In itself, joining the insurance program does not carry any legal burden for the parties, except for the signing by the bank of the insurance contract with the insurance company in agreement with the borrower and the bank receiving compensation from the borrower for its expenses. The scheme of lending with insurance is designed so that the consumer is not provided with the information necessary for choosing insurance services: about insurance companies, about the amount of insurance fees and the price of bank services, the nature of the service, the obligations of the bank. The borrower can be insured only in one insurance organization chosen by the bank. The application for a loan is a typical one with conditions predetermined by the bank, the borrower was deprived of the opportunity to influence its content.

Commission for settlement and cash services is aimed at providing services for issuing a loan, does not have the nature of a payment for an independent service that creates any additional benefit or other beneficial effect for the borrower, the terms of the agreement on its payment are invalid.

At the court session, the representative of the NB "<данные изъяты>» (JSC) FULL NAME6, acting by proxy, the claims and the arguments of the statement of claim fully supported, the counterclaim was not recognized on the grounds set forth in the objection to the claim.

The defendant did not appear at the hearing, the date and time of the hearing was duly notified, the representative of the defendant lawyer FULL NAME7, acting by proxy and warrant, did not recognize the bank's claims at the hearing, counterclaims regarding the invalidation of the terms of the loan agreement on the payment of commission for settlement and cash services and collecting from the bank in favor of the borrower the paid commission in the amount<данные изъяты>., fully supported the arguments of the counterclaim. From claims regarding the invalidation of the terms of the loan agreement on the payment of the insurance premium and the recovery of the paid insurance premium in the amount of<данные изъяты>.refused. The court issued a separate ruling on accepting the waiver of part of the counterclaims and terminating the proceedings.

The court, having listened to the explanations of the representatives of the parties, having studied the materials of the case, comes to the following.

According to Art. 432 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation essential conditions contract are its subject matter, as well as the conditions that are named in laws or other regulations essential or necessary for a given type of contract.

Article 30 of the Federal Law dated DD.MM.YYYY N 395-1 “On Banks and Banking Activity” also provides that the agreement between credit institutions and their customers must indicate interest rates on loans.

By virtue of Article 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a loan agreement, a bank or other credit institution (creditor) undertakes to provide funds (credit) to the borrower in the amount and on the terms stipulated by the agreement, and the borrower undertakes to return the amount received and pay interest on it.

In accordance with Part 2 of Article 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules on a loan provided for in paragraph 1 of Chapter 42 of the Code apply to relations under a loan agreement, unless otherwise established by the rules of paragraph 2 on loans and does not follow from the essence of the loan agreement. According to Art. 809 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the lender has the right to receive interest from the borrower on the loan amount in the amount and in the manner determined by the agreement.

On the basis of Part 2 of Article 811 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in installments (in installments), then if the borrower violates the deadline set for the return of the next part of the loan, the lender has the right to demand early repayment of the entire remaining loan amount together with the interest due.

In accordance with the provisions of Art. Art. 434, 435, 438 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement may be concluded in any form provided for transactions, unless a specific form is established by law for agreements of this type. If the parties have agreed to conclude a contract in a certain form, it is considered concluded after giving it the agreed form. An offer is an offer addressed to a specific person, which is quite definite and expresses the intention of the person who made the offer to consider himself to have entered into an agreement with the addressee who will accept the offer. Acceptance is the response of the person to whom the offer is addressed about its acceptance. The performance by the person who received the offer, within the period established for its acceptance, of actions to fulfill the conditions of the contract specified in it is considered acceptance.

According to part 3 of Art. 423 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the parties may conclude an agreement that contains elements of various agreements provided for by law or other legal acts (mixed agreement). To the relations of the parties under a mixed contract, the rules on contracts, the elements of which are contained in the mixed contract, are applied in the relevant parts, unless otherwise follows from the agreement of the parties or the essence of the mixed contract.

Thus, within the meaning of the above legal norms, a mixed agreement containing elements of a loan agreement and an agreement for the provision of paid services can be concluded by accepting by the borrower the relevant offer of the bank, with subsequent acceptance by the bank of the application - the offer of the borrower, which can be made, including by crediting appropriate funds to the bank account of the borrower.

As follows from the case, DD.MM.YYYY. between the parties, using the offer-acceptance form, a loan agreement No. was concluded, under the terms of which the NB "<данные изъяты>» (JSC) undertook to provide the borrower FULL NAME2 with a loan in the amount of<данные изъяты>. under<данные изъяты>per annum (full cost of the loan<данные изъяты>per annum) for a period<данные изъяты>months for the purchase of a vehicle brand "<данные изъяты>”, DD.MM.YYYY year of manufacture, VIN<данные изъяты>, and the borrower undertook to repay the loan and pay interest for using the loan in monthly annuity payments according to the payment schedule. The fulfillment by the borrower of the obligations assumed under the loan agreement is secured by the pledge of the acquired loan funds car.

According to the Tariffs of the National Bank "<данные изъяты>» (JSC), which is an integral part of the loan agreement, a commission for settlement and cash services in the amount of<данные изъяты>which is calculated from the amount credited to the account and is charged monthly as part of the next payment.

The calculation of the full cost of the loan includes the following payments: payments on the principal debt -<данные изъяты>rub. loan interest-369<данные изъяты>., commission for settlement and cash services<данные изъяты>rub., total<данные изъяты>cop. The acceptance of an offer to conclude an agreement is the actions of the lender to open an account for the borrower.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 196, paragraph 1 of Art. 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the general limitation period is three years from the date determined in accordance with Art. 200 of this Code. Unless otherwise provided by law, the running of the limitation period begins from the day when the person knew or should have known about the violation of his right and about who is the proper defendant in the claim for the protection of this right.

As an exception to general rule in relation to claims related to the invalidity of void transactions, a special rule is provided - Part 1 of Art. 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which (in the version in force at the time of the conclusion of the loan agreement) the limitation period for a claim to apply the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction is three years; the running of the limitation period for the specified claim begins from the day when the execution of this transaction began.

According to the specified legal norm, the limitation period for claims to apply the consequences of the invalidity of a void transaction is determined not by a subjective factor (the knowledge of the person concerned about the violation of his rights), but by objective circumstances characterizing the beginning of the execution of the transaction.

Such legal regulation due to the nature of the relevant transactions as void, which are invalid from the moment they are made, regardless of whether they are recognized as such by the court (clause 1, article 166 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), and therefore do not have legal force, do not create any rights and obligations as for the parties to the transaction, as well as for third parties.

Since the right to file a claim in this case is associated with the onset of the consequences of the execution of a void transaction and aims to eliminate them, it is the moment when the execution of such a transaction begins, when one or another non-legal result arises from it, that is chosen in the current civil legislation as determining for calculation of the statute of limitations.

This conclusion is due to the fact that the right to file a claim is associated with the onset of the consequences of the execution of a void transaction and is aimed at eliminating them, therefore, it is the moment the execution of such a transaction begins, when an unlawful result derived from it arises, that determines the beginning of the calculation of the limitation period.

The fact that the disputed commission is paid in periodic payments does not indicate that the limitation period for their reverse collection should be calculated separately for each payment.

Paragraph 10 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 12, DD.MM.YYYY N 15/18 “On Certain Issues Related to the Application of the Rules of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on Limitation of Actions” explains that the limitation period for claims on overdue time-based payments (interest on borrowed funds, rent, etc.) is calculated separately for each overdue payment.

At the same time, this provision, which regulates the rules for applying the limitation period for claims for the recovery of overdue time payments, does not apply to legal relations related to claims for the return of the executed under the transaction, which are not regulated by the provisions of Article 200 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

This legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is reflected in the “Review of judicial practice in civil cases related to the resolution of disputes about the fulfillment of credit obligations” (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on May 22, 2013) - when calculating the limitation period for claims for the recovery of overdue debts on credit For an obligation providing for performance in the form of periodic payments, the courts apply the general limitation period (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), which is to be calculated separately for each payment from the day when the creditor knew or should have known about the violation of his right. According to the requirements for the recognition of one or another term of the loan agreement as null and void, the courts, based on paragraph 1 of Article 181 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, apply a three-year limitation period, the course of which is calculated from the day when the execution of the insignificant part of the transaction began. If there is a statement by a party to the dispute about the omission of the limitation period, establishing the fact that this period was missed without good reason (if the plaintiff is individual), in accordance with Part 6 of Article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the courts decide to dismiss the claim without examining other factual circumstances in the case.

Thus, the limitation period for the plaintiff's claims to apply the consequences of the invalidity of the terms of the loan agreement expired DD.MM.YYYY., since the execution of the transaction in this part began DD.MM.YYYY. at the time the borrower makes the initial payment on account of paying the commission for settlement and cash services, while he applied to the court with the corresponding requirement after the expiration of the limitation period - DD.MM.YYYY

According to paragraph 2 of Art. 199 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the limitation period is applied by the court only at the request of a party to the dispute, made before the court makes a decision. The expiration of the limitation period, the application of which is declared by the party to the dispute, is the basis for the court to issue a decision to dismiss the claim.

At the court session, the representative of the plaintiff NB "<данные изъяты>» (JSC) was filed a motion to skip FULL NAME2 statute of limitations.

The petitioner for the restoration of the limitation period was not filed by the plaintiff, no evidence of the validity of the reason for missing this period was presented, in connection with which the court concludes that the counterclaims are denied.

The plaintiff has fulfilled its obligations, the borrower has not fulfilled its obligations since DD.MM.YYYY, as evidenced by the account statement for the period sDD.MM.YYYY. by DD.MM.YYYY

Claims for the recovery of a fine (forfeit) in the amount of<данные изъяты>rub. for late payment of payments based on the terms of the concluded loan agreement, in accordance with the tariffs for skipping the next payment, the borrower pays:<данные изъяты>rub., for the second time in a row -<данные изъяты>rub., for the third time in a row -<данные изъяты>rub.

According to Art. Art. 309.310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be properly performed; a unilateral refusal to fulfill obligations is not allowed.

In accordance with Parts 1 and 3 of Article 348 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, foreclosure on the pledged property to satisfy the claims of the pledgee (creditor) may be levied in the event of non-performance or improper performance by the debtor of the obligation secured by the pledge. The pledgee acquires the right to foreclose on the subject of pledge, if on the day of the due date for the fulfillment of the obligation secured by the pledge, it is not fulfilled, except in cases where, under the law or the contract, such a right arises later or, by virtue of the law, the foreclosure can be carried out earlier. Unless otherwise provided by the pledge agreement, foreclosure on property pledged to secure an obligation fulfilled by periodic payments is allowed in case of systematic violation of the terms for making them, that is, in case of violation of the terms for making payments more than three times within twelve months preceding the date of application to the court or the date of sending a notice of extrajudicial foreclosure of the pledged property, even if each delay is insignificant.

On the basis of Part 1 of Article 349 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the claims of the pledgee (creditor) are satisfied from the value of the pledged property by a court decision.

In accordance with Part.1 Article. 28.1 of the Federal Law "On Pledge", the sale (sale) of the pledged movable property, which is foreclosed on the basis of a court decision, is carried out by selling at a public auction held in the manner prescribed by the legislation of the Russian Federation on enforcement proceedings.

The initial sale price of the pledged movable property is determined by a court decision in cases of foreclosure on movable property in court or in other cases in accordance with the pledge agreement. When determining the initial sale price of the pledged movable property in court, the indicated price is determined by a court decision on the basis of an agreement between the pledgor and the pledgee, reached during the consideration of the case in court, and in the event of a dispute, by the court itself. If the initial sale price of the pledged movable property is determined on the basis of the appraiser's report, the initial sale price of the pledged property, from which the auction starts, is set equal to eighty percent of the market value of such property, determined in the appraiser's report (clause 11, article 28.2 of the Federal Law "On Pledge") .

Vehicle - bus brand "<данные изъяты>”, DD.MM.YYYY year of manufacture, VIN<данные изъяты>, register sign<данные изъяты>belongs to the defendant on the right of ownership, which is confirmed by the information available in the case of the REO of the STSI ATC<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY

By virtue of Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections.

The borrower violated his obligations to timely repay the received loan and pay interest for using it, which is confirmed by the account statement and the calculation of the debt. Evidence to support performance monetary obligation not presented by the respondent.

Thus, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement, foreclosure of the pledged property are justified and subject to satisfaction, while the initial sale value of the pledged property should be determined in the amount<данные изъяты>from the cost<данные изъяты>., in accordance with the report No. "Agency Assessment" LLC<данные изъяты>» from DD.MM.YYYY., which is<данные изъяты>

In accordance with Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the defendant in favor of the plaintiff is subject to recovery of the legal expenses incurred by him for the payment of the state duty in the amount<данные изъяты>

Determination of the Industrial District Court<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY. at the request of the plaintiff, in order to secure the claim, arrest was made on the TS- "<данные изъяты>”,DD.MM.YYYY year of manufacture, VIN<данные изъяты>, engine number<данные изъяты>

If the claim is denied, the measures taken to secure the claim are retained until the court decision enters into legal force. However, the judge or the court, simultaneously with the adoption of the court decision or after its adoption, may issue a court ruling on the cancellation of measures to secure the claim. If the claim is satisfied, the measures taken to ensure it remain in effect until the execution of the court decision (part 3 of article 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Based on the above, guided by art. Art. 194-198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court

Satisfy the claims of the Open Joint Stock Company National Bank "Trust".

Collect from FULL NAME2 in favor of the Open Joint Stock Company National Bank «<данные изъяты>"(OJSC NB"<данные изъяты>”) debt under loan agreement No. dated DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of<данные изъяты>. and the cost of paying the state fee in the amount<данные изъяты>., but in total<данные изъяты>

Foreclose on the mortgaged property belonging to FULL NAME2- bus brand "<данные изъяты>”, DD.MM.YYYY year of manufacture, VIN<данные изъяты>, engine number<данные изъяты>, register sign<данные изъяты>, by determining the method of realization of this vehicle by selling at public auction.

Determine the initial selling price of the vehicle in total<данные изъяты>

Measures to secure the claim: arrest<данные изъяты>”, DD.MM.YYYY year of manufacture, VIN<данные изъяты>, engine number<данные изъяты>, register sign<данные изъяты>imposed by the ruling of the Industrial District Court<адрес>from DD.MM.YYYY, keep until the execution of the court decision

The decision of the court may be appealed by the parties on appeal to the Samara Regional Court within a month from the date of drawing up the decision in the final form by filing a complaint through the Industrial District Court<адрес>.

The decision in the final form is drawn up DD.MM.YYYY.

Judge: signature S.N. Lansky