Response to the claim for invalidation of the transaction and recovery of the amount
Bostandyk District Court of Almaty
To Judge Tursymbaeva R.A.
Almaty, Bostandyk district,
mkr. Orbita 2, 20a.
+7 727 333 12 21.
From the defendants:
Since 08/25/1993, IIN: ..... residing at the address:
Almaty city, prospekt, house No...., apartment No....
JV K.. born on 02/20/1992. IIN: ..... residing at the address:
Almaty, Aimanova street, house no...., apartment no.296.
Representative by proxy:
Law and Law Law Firm
BIN 201240021767
79 Abylai Khan Ave., office 304, Almaty.
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+ 7 727 978 5755; +7 708 578 5758.
Plaintiff: G. O. Anatolyevich, born on 05/13/1974,
residing at the address: Russian Federation, Republic
of T.., Tukayevsky district, village B., street N...., house 38.
Review of the claim
on invalidation of the transaction and recovery of the amount
In your proceedings, there is a civil case registered for No. 7514-24-00-2/29881 on the claim of Mr. Oleg Anatolyevich (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) to the Court.. (Hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) and with the involvement of third parties, the private notary of Almaty, Gulnara Seitzhanova (Hereinafter referred to as the Notary) and K. E. P. on the recognition of the transaction as invalid and the recovery of the amount with the restoration of the party to the transaction to its original position.
Thus, between the parties, in accordance with the purchase and sale agreement dated July 15, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the agreement) With the consent of the spouse, JV Kanatkyzy (hereinafter referred to as the Defendants) sold Mr. Oleg Anatolyevich (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) a Toyota Land Cruiser 200 car, manufactured in 2016, identification number JTMCV02J504180477, state registration number 752MCZ02 (hereinafter referred to as the Car). On July 15, 2022, this agreement was certified by a private notary of Almaty, Gulnara Zhusupkhanovna Seitzhanova, registered in the register for No. 2334.
Accordingly, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in accordance with Articles 151, 152, 154, 155 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan by agreement of the parties, a written form of the transaction was completed, which was notarized and registered.
According to paragraph 2 of the Contract, the plaintiff paid the defendants an amount of 24,900,000 tenge, and according to paragraph 4 of the contract, it follows that the issuance of the contract to the plaintiff indicates a full settlement between the parties.
- In civil law relations, each party must fulfill its obligations under the contract, and on the part of the defendant, the contractual obligations were fulfilled properly, where, through authorized bodies, the above-mentioned car was removed from the state database for registration of vehicles and then the transit number 6512 MN was assigned and safely crossed the state border of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Further, the plaintiff claims that on 07/19/2022, during an inspection of the car, the fact of a change in the chassis and engine numbers of the car was revealed in connection with these circumstances, the car was seized from the plaintiff, which is confirmed by the protocol on the seizure of the vehicle dated 07/19/2022.
- However, the Plaintiff submitted to the court a copy of the Protocol on the seizure of the vehicle dated 07/19/2022, where it is not visible which car, when, and by whom it was inspected and seized, respectively
In accordance with Clause 5 of Article 68 of the CPC RK, circumstances cannot be considered established if only copies of documents are provided to confirm them, when the need to present the original follows from the requirements of the law.
The court also cannot consider the circumstances proved, which are confirmed only by a copy of a document or other written evidence when challenging its content, if:
1) the original document has been lost and has not been handed over to the court;
2) the copies of this document submitted by each of the disputing parties are not identical to each other;
3) it is impossible to establish the content of the original document with the help of other evidence.
In addition, the Plaintiff claims that the fact of changing the identification numbers of the body and engine is confirmed by the expert opinion No. 911. Further, on the basis of which, on August 05, 2022, senior investigator A.S. Nurislamov OD OP No. 4 "Electrotechnical" Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in Naberezhnye Chelny, a police major opened a criminal case on the grounds of a crime under Part326 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which is confirmed by the Resolution on the initiation of criminal proceedings dated August 05, 2022.
- As well as the Protocol on the seizure of the vehicle, the Plaintiff's side also provided the court with only a copy of the Expert Opinion for No. 911., and the Resolution on the initiation of a criminal case and its acceptance for production No. 12201920069000953 dated August 05, 2022. 68, 72 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a copy of the documents is considered and is not subject to application, taking into account relevance, admissibility and reliability as evidence.
According to Articles 67, paragraphs 1, Article 68 of the CPC RK, evidence is considered reliable if, as a result of verification, it turns out that it corresponds to reality. Each evidence is also subject to assessment taking into account its relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together is sufficient to resolve a civil case.
According to the Plaintiff's arguments, the plaintiff sold a stolen vehicle with a fake body identification number, respectively, the transaction with the specified vehicle is not legitimate and not valid. And in the situation under consideration, the plaintiff was misled in terms of the vehicle identification number, as a result of which the vehicle was seized and the plaintiff is unable to use the property acquired under the transaction.
- The provisions of Articles 271, 272 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan stipulate that Obligations arise from a contract and the Obligation must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements - in accordance with business practices or other commonly imposed requirements.
Accordingly, the defendant, in accordance with the requirements of the Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, purchased the specified car in 2020 in the city of Karaganda from a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where the authorized authorities checked and issued the car properly during the re-registration and there were no problems from law enforcement agencies during the two years of operation of the car.
07/15/2022 According to the Car Purchase and Sale Agreement, the specified car was also rechecked and de-registered by the authorized authorities and a Transit number was assigned for transportation to the Russian Federation and the Plaintiff was present when the contract was drawn up. The arguments on the fact of the non-validity of the Purchase Agreement and the misleading of the Plaintiff are not substantiated.
Article 72 of the CPC RK stipulates that each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis of its claims.
In addition, the plaintiff, as a defendant in the lawsuit, indicates the Defendant's spouse, JV Kanatkyzy, who has nothing to do with this civil case, except that she gave Consent to the sale of a car dated 07/15/2022, since she is the defendant's spouse.
Normative resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated March 20, 2003 No. 2. On the application by the courts of certain norms of civil procedure legislation, the above-mentioned statement of claim is submitted to the court of first instance in writing or in the form of an electronic document and the application must specify: the name of the court to which the statement of claim is filed, the data and addresses of the parties to the trial, as well as the circumstances on which the plaintiff bases his claims, as well as the content of the evidence confirming these circumstances and other circumstances according to the above article.
Article 6 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Interpretation of the norms of civil legislation" provides: The norms of civil legislation should be interpreted in accordance with the literal meaning of their verbal expression.
Article 47. CPC RK "Parties", Parties in civil proceedings
the Plaintiff and the Defendant are present. Plaintiffs are citizens and legal entities who have filed a claim in defense of their violated or disputed rights and freedoms, legitimate interests, or in whose defense a claim has been filed by other persons in accordance with the procedure provided for by this Code.
The defendants are citizens and legal entities against whom the claim is filed. In cases stipulated by law, organizations that are not legal entities may also be parties.
However, the above requirements of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan have not been met, as the Statement of Claim indicates an Improper Defendant. Thus, an erroneous interpretation on the part of the Plaintiff of the rules of procedural law led to a violation of the civil rights of the Joint Venture Kanatkyzy.
The plaintiff's actions violate Articles 4 and 5 of the CPC RK Tasks and Principles of civil proceedings. Violation of the principles of civil proceedings, depending on its nature and materiality, entails the cancellation of judicial acts. The objectives of civil proceedings are also to protect and restore violated or disputed rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, the state and legal entities, respect for the rule of law in civil matters, ensure full, timely, fair consideration and resolution of cases, promote peaceful settlement of disputes, prevent offenses and form a respectful attitude towards the law and the court in society.
Article 50 of the CPC RK. The "Replacement of an improper defendant" provides for
Replacement of the defendant is allowed before the start of consideration of the case on the merits in the court of first instance. The court, having established that the claim was brought against the wrong person who should be responsible for the claim, may, at the request of the plaintiff, without terminating the case, allow the replacement of the improper defendant with the proper one. After the replacement of an improper defendant, the preparation of the case and its consideration at the court session are carried out from the very beginning. The term of consideration of the case is calculated from the date of completion of the preparation of the case for trial. If the plaintiff does not agree to replace the improper defendant with a proper defendant, the court considers and resolves the case according to the claim.
The Plaintiff also asks the court to bring the parties to the transaction back to their original position, ignoring his arguments in the lawsuit that the car was seized by law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.
- According to the above-mentioned arguments of the Plaintiff, article 157-1. The CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan stipulates that in case of invalidity of the transaction, each of the parties is obliged to return to the other everything received under the transaction, and if it is impossible to return in kind, to reimburse the value of the property to be returned, etc.
If the transaction is aimed at achieving a criminal goal, the illegality of which is established by a court verdict (resolution), then if there is intent on both sides, everything received by them under the transaction or intended to be received is subject to confiscation by court decision or verdict. In case of execution of such a transaction by one party, everything received by it and everything owed by it under the transaction to the first party is subject to confiscation from the other party. If none of the parties has begun execution, everything provided for in the execution of the transaction is subject to confiscation.
If there is an intent to achieve a criminal goal, the illegality of which is established by a court verdict (resolution), only one of the parties has everything received by her under the transaction to be returned to the other party, and what was received by the latter or owed to her under the transaction is subject to confiscation.
In accordance with Article 6 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the norms of civil legislation should be interpreted in accordance with the literal meaning of their verbal expression.
68, 72 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the grounds for its claims and objections, each evidence is subject to assessment taking into account relevance, admissibility, reliability.
According to Articles 188, 189 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Owner has the right, at his discretion, to perform any actions with respect to his property, including alienating this property to other persons, transferring to them, while remaining the owner, his powers to own, use and dispose of property, pledge property and encumber it in other ways, dispose of it in a different way. The owner has the right to own, use and dispose of his property to determine the legal fate of the property.
Article 157, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan stipulates that a transaction is declared invalid in violation of the requirements for the form, content and participants of the transaction, as well as for the freedom of their will on the grounds established by this Code or other legislative acts.
- However, in accordance with this article, the Plaintiff does not provide any substantial arguments about the violation of the form and content of the agreement, as well as the will to conclude the Contract.
Article 159 of the Civil Code stipulates the Grounds for the invalidity of transactions and cites 12 circumstances where a transaction may be declared invalid, namely:
1. A transaction made without obtaining the necessary permission is void.;
2. A transaction that pursues the goals of unfair competition or violates the requirements of business ethics;
3. A transaction made by a person under the age of fourteen (a minor);
4. A transaction made by a minor who has reached the age of fourteen without the consent of his legal representatives;
5. A transaction made by a person who has been declared legally incompetent due to mental illness or dementia is void. A transaction made by a citizen who was subsequently declared legally incompetent;
6. A transaction made by a person limited in legal capacity by a court;
7. A transaction made by a legally capable person, but who was in a state at the time of its commission when he could not understand the significance of his actions or direct them - due to this circumstance, the Plaintiff did not provide the court with the appropriate supporting documents and/or evidence.;
8. A transaction made as a result of a significant misconception may be declared invalid by a court at the request of a party acting under the influence of a misconception.;
9. A transaction made under the influence of deception, violence, threats, as well as a transaction that a person was forced to make due to a combination of difficult circumstances on extremely unfavorable terms for himself, which the other party took advantage of (bonded transaction)
10. A transaction made as a result of a malicious agreement by a representative of one party, an unscrupulous representative - well, here the parties were directly present at the conclusion of the Contract.;
11. A transaction made by a legal entity in contradiction with the objectives of its business;
12. Transactions provided for in paragraphs 3, 5 of this Article, at the request of the legal representatives of minors or incapacitated persons.
Dear Court, Chapter 4 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Transactions” specifically defines the concept of a transaction, the form of conclusion, and the circumstances in which the Transaction is recognized as invalid. However, the Statement of Claim does not specify specific circumstances and or a reference to regulations on the recognition of the transaction as invalid. Apart from the unsubstantiated charges of the Defendant, nothing is given.
The plaintiff had enough time to study the Contract and prepare the documents for the court. In addition, as practice shows, all Notaries pre-prepare a preliminary version of the Contract and after studying the document by the parties, taking into account the changes and additions, they print it out on a letterhead and submit it for signature, which was done by a Notary, since the contract itself takes a lot of time. Article 17. The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Notary” A notary performs notarial acts provided for by this Law and other legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the interests of individuals and legal entities who have applied to him; draft transactions, applications and other documents; request from individuals and legal entities documents and information necessary to perform notarial acts, in compliance with the established legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
We consider the Plaintiff's arguments to be unsubstantiated and unjustified from the point of view of relevance and admissibility as evidence in accordance with art. 68 of the CPC RK, each evidence is subject to assessment taking into account relevance, admissibility, reliability, and all the evidence collected together sufficiency to resolve a civil case – in this civil case, we observe the groundlessness of Claims and Defamation in relation to The defendant.
According to paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, citizens and legal entities must act in good faith, reasonably and fairly in exercising their rights, observing the requirements contained in the legislation and the moral principles of society. This obligation cannot be excluded or limited by the contract. Good faith, reasonableness and fairness of the actions of participants in civil law relations are assumed.
Dear Court, according to the norms of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a transaction may be invalid on the grounds established by law, by virtue of its recognition as such by a court (disputed transaction), or independently of such recognition by virtue of a direct reference to its invalidity in the law (void transaction) - however, all the arguments given in the Statement of Claim do not indicate specific facts in order to to challenge and or the grounds established by law to challenge the transaction, we consider all arguments to be unfounded.
Paragraph 13 of the Regulatory Resolution No. 6 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On certain issues of the invalidity of transactions and the application by the courts of the consequences of their invalidity” stipulates that when the courts consider the consequences of the invalidity of the transaction, the defendant's counterclaims to recognize the person as a bona fide acquirer are not required, since resolving this issue is the responsibility of the court when evaluating evidence in the case.
On January 08, 2024, the Law and Law Law Firm sent a Lawyer's Request for No. 0801/24 to the Administrative Police Department of the DP of Almaty city on the above-mentioned arguments of the Plaintiff, where they asked to provide the following information:
· when, by whom and from where the above-mentioned car was brought to the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan;
· about all copyright holders for the above mentioned vehicles;
· to whom were the management insurance issued for the above-mentioned vehicles;
· registration of an administrative offense for the above-mentioned vehicles;
· about participation in an accident on the above-mentioned vehicles.
Subsequently, we received a response from the Administrative Division of the City of Almaty to your request dated 08.01.2024 for ex.No. 0801/24 we inform you that according to the UIS (Unified Information System) database The Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan TOYOTA LAND CRUISER 200, VIN - JTMCV02J504180477 was registered for the first time in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan on 15.03.2018 in the Administrative Division of the Almaty region.
Further, the car has been reissued 6 times in the Karaganda region, due to changes in its owners.
Full vehicle credentials, information about registration/re-registration of the vehicle and information about the owners of the vehicle are provided in the appendix.
On the issue of obtaining reliable information on concluded insurance contracts for a vehicle, we recommend contacting JSC State Credit Bureau, since the employees of the Administrative Division do not have direct access to the database of the ESBD.
The application is on the 1st sheet.
The above-mentioned circumstances once again confirm that the Defendants did not interrupt the identification numbers of the car.
In accordance with Articles 157, paragraph 2 and Article 159 of the Civil Code, we do not observe any grounds for declaring the transaction invalid due to delusion, deception, violence, threats or other culpable actions on the part of the Defendant.
The plaintiff argues in the lawsuit that, "At the same time, it has been reliably established that paragraph 1 of Article 429 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan: The seller is responsible for the defects of the goods if the buyer proves that they arose before its transfer to the buyer or for reasons that arose before that moment. The seller is responsible for the shortcomings of the goods sold even when he was unaware of them. The agreement to release the seller from liability or to limit it is null and void."
- We do not agree with these arguments because according to Article 6 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
The norms of civil legislation should be interpreted in accordance with the literal meaning of their verbal expression. If there are possible different understandings of the words used in the text of the legislative norms, preference is given to the understanding corresponding to the provisions of The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the basic principles of civil legislation.
We believe that the Plaintiff applies the norm of art. 429 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is not applicable to this legal relationship, since this article regulates relations under Contracts for the sale of goods.
In this civil case, it should be understood that we are not talking about goods, but about movable property, and the norm of Article 117 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan should be applied, which defines Immovable and movable property, that immovable property (immovable things, real estate) includes: land, buildings, structures, perennial plantings and other property firmly connected with land, that is, objects that cannot be moved without disproportionate damage to their intended purpose.
Non-real estate assets, including money and securities, are considered movable property. Registration of rights to movable property is not required, except in cases specified in legislative acts.
In accordance with Article 162, paragraph 2, the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan provides that the limitation period for disputes related to the invalidity of a transaction on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 159 of this Code is one year from the date of cessation of violence or threats under the influence of which the transaction was made, or from the day when the plaintiff learned or He should have found out about other circumstances that are grounds for declaring the transaction invalid.
According to Article 126, the time limits established by this Code may be restored by a court if they are missed for reasons recognized by the court as valid or if there are other circumstances that prevented the timely filing of a complaint.
An application for restoration of the missed procedural period is submitted to the court in which the procedural action was to be performed, no later than one month from the day when the applicant became aware of the violation of his rights or legitimate interests.
At the same time as submitting an application for reinstatement, a claim for protection of rights must be submitted, and a document confirming the validity of the reasons for missing the deadline must be submitted.
Based on the above, we believe that the limitation period begins on 07/19/2022 from the moment the vehicle was seized in accordance with the protocol on the seizure of the vehicle, thus the limitation period of one year passed on 07/19/2023, or begins on August 5, 2022 from the moment the criminal case was initiated and expires on August 5, 2023, while the claim was It was filed after the expiration of the statutory period of 1 year, namely on November 28, 2023.
On January 03, 2024, the Defendant applied to the Law and Law Law Firm to protect his legal rights and concluded a Legal Services Agreement No. 0301/23 dated January 03, 2024, after which funds in the amount of 700,000 tenge were transferred to the Lawyer's current account through the applications of Kaspi Bank JSC Kaspi pay.
113 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, it is stipulated at the request of the party in whose favor the Decision was made, the court awards, on the other hand, the costs incurred to pay for the assistance of a representative (several representatives) who participated in the process and is not in an employment relationship with this party, in the amount of the costs actually incurred by the party (payment order, fiscal receipt). For property claims, the total amount of these expenses should not exceed ten percent of the satisfied portion of the claim. According to non-property requirements, the amount of expenses is collected within reasonable limits, but should not exceed three hundred monthly calculation indices.
By virtue of Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, everyone has the right to defend their violated or disputed rights, freedoms or legally protected interests and on the basis of the above in accordance with Articles 68, 72, 166 of the CPC RK,
I ask the Court:
o To refuse to satisfy the Claim of Mr. Oleg Anatolyevich to S. E. S., SP. K. on the recognition of the transaction as invalid and the recovery of the amount with the restoration of the party to the transaction to its original position;
o Collect from Mr. Oleg Anatolyevich in favor of Mr. Serikula the amount of expenses for the representative's assistance in the amount of 700,000 (seven hundred thousand) tenge.
With respect,
Representative by proxy
___________/ Sarzhanov G.T.
"___" __________ 2025 the year
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
