Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The Supreme Court has finally confirmed the decision to recover from the founder of the investment company Inzhur, former member of parliament Andriy Zhurzhi, more than 2,7 million hryvnias in interest under the loan agreement.
Zhurzhi’s company is known for large real estate deals — in particular, Inzhur will acquire a shopping mall for 36 million dollars, while the founder of the fund turned out to be a debtor in a private case that lasted over two years.
According to the case materials, 18 August 2022 year the parties entered into a loan agreement. Under its terms Andriy Zhurzhi received from Valerii Hryhorovych Kulyk 20,37 million hryvnias, which at the time of signing equaled 500 thousand dollars. The borrower was to return the funds by 28 February 2023 year.
The lender contended that the funds were not returned within the term specified in the contract. First, he sent the borrower a demand on 1 March 2023 year, and after the refusal — a claim on 31 March. In fact, the borrower returned the loan amount only in 20 July 2023 year, but without paying any interest for the use of the funds.
The plaintiff insisted that the contract did not contain a provision about gratuitousness, and therefore demanded interest for the period from 19 August 2022 year to 28 February 2023 year at the National Bank of Ukraine's rate of 25% per annum. The amount of the claim was 2,7 million hryvnias.
How the courts reviewed the case three times
Solomianskyi District Court on 28 November 2024 year denied the claim, citing a Civil Code provision that exempts debtors from paying interest during the period of martial law. By the same decision, the court additionally recovered 40 thousand hryvnias in attorney’s fees from the plaintiff in favor of the defendant.
However, the Kyiv Court of Appeal on 13 May 2025 year overturned this decision and fully granted the claim. The appellate instance noted that the provision on exemption from liability for late payment pertains to penalties and fines, not to interest for the legitimate use of the loan, which is governed by a separate article of the Civil Code. The court recovered 2,7 million hryvnias in interest from the debtor in favor of the lender.
The borrower’s representative appealed the appellate court’s decision in cassation, insisting that the loan was actually extended in dollars, and therefore the rules on charging interest in hryvnias could not be applied. The defense even asked to transfer the case to the relevant united chamber of the Supreme Court for review of prior practice.
The Cassation Civil Court panel rejected all defense arguments and denied transferring the case to the united chamber. The Supreme Court found that the loan agreement did not contain a direct indication of gratuitousness, and therefore the lender had a right to receive interest.
Why the borrower’s position did not work
A key argument was that, despite the sum being tied to the dollar exchange rate, the contract directly defined the issuance and return of funds specifically in cash hryvnias. This distinguished the case from precedents cited by the borrower’s defense, where the currency of lending was indeed dollars, not hryvnia with a dollar equivalent.
The court also reminded of the presumption of repayability of a loan contract: if the text does not explicitly state that the loan is interest-free, the creditor has the right to demand interest at the NBU policy rate. This rule applies regardless of whether interest is detailed in the contract itself.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Позичив 500 тисяч доларів і відмовлявся платити проценти: засновник Inzhur Журжиій програв остаточний суд". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: HAB Media.
