Ulyanovsk Regional Court - judicial act. How to check the loan calculation and payment schedule issued by VTB24 or Sberbank? What to do if the payment schedule is calculated incorrectly

02.04.2024 | Structure

ULYANOVSK REGIONAL COURT

Judge Pershina S.V. Case No. 33-4487/2013

A P E L L Y C I O N N O E O P R E D E L E N I

Judicial panel for civil cases of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court consisting of:

presiding Shlotgauer L.L.,

judges Vasilyeva E.V. and Nefedova O.N.,

under secretary S.A. Dolynin

considered in open court the case on the appeal of Garder N*** V*** against the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Ulyanovsk dated September 24, 2013, on which it was decided:

Claims of Garder N*** V*** against VTB 24 Bank (closed joint-stock company) for the protection of consumer rights, recognition of the loan agreement as fulfilled, recognition of the bank’s claims to repay the debt under the loan agreement as unlawful, invalidation of the loan repayment schedule and interest , recognizing as unlawful actions to withhold a vehicle passport; the issuance of documents containing information on the status of the account, the amount of the principal debt and accrued interest under the loan agreement, and the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim (cession) dated June 11, 2008, shall be left unsatisfied.

Having heard the report of judge O.N. Nefedov, the judicial panel

U S T A N O V I L A:

Garder N.V. applied to the court with the requirements specified during the consideration of the case against VTB 24 Bank (closed joint stock company) (VTB 24 (CJSC)) to recognize the loan agreement No. *** dated October 4, 2007 as fulfilled, to recognize as unlawful the demands for repayment of debt under the specified loan agreement, invalidation of the loan repayment schedule and interest in terms of indicating the presence of a balance of the principal debt in the amount of 93,900 rubles after making the last payment, recognition of illegal actions to withhold the passport of the vehicle pledged as collateral; the obligation to issue documents containing information about the status of the account, the amount of the principal debt, accrued interest under the loan agreement, and the agreement concluded with OJSC VTB Bank North-West on the assignment of the right of claim (assignment) dated June 11, 2008.

She motivated her demands by the fact that on October 4, 2007, she entered into loan agreement No. *** with VTB Bank North-West OJSC, under the terms of which she was issued a loan in the amount of 845,100 rubles. for the purchase of a KIA Sportage car at 13% per annum for a period until September 28, 2012. The loan amount was transferred to the account of the seller - A*** LLC. The terms of the agreement provide for a one-time payment to the bank in the amount of 4,500 rubles. for placing funds. To ensure the fulfillment of obligations to repay the loan, a pledge agreement for the purchased vehicle was concluded on the same day. According to the loan repayment schedule and interest, the end date of the loan term is set as September 28, 2012. The schedule provides for 59 payments to repay the loan, and the balance of the principal debt on the loan was erroneously determined after making the last payment - 93,900 rubles. In this case, the total amount payable in accordance with the schedule is RUB 1,030,694. 79 kopecks She, the plaintiff, made 59 payments totaling 1,022,250 rubles. 47 kopecks, last payment made on September 28, 2012.

Despite making all payments, the defendant refused to issue a vehicle passport; at the same time, a new debt calculation schedule was provided, which unilaterally extended the validity period of the agreement - until July 31, 2013 and increased the loan amount by 179,000 rubles.

The claim to eliminate violations committed when drawing up a new loan repayment schedule was left unsatisfied. In those sent to her - Garder N.V. The bank's demands for debt repayment indicate different amounts of debt: RUB 329,720. and 216,164 rubles.

The Office of Rospotrebnadzor for the Ulyanovsk Region has been involved in the case.

Having considered the merits of the claims presented, the court made the above decision.

In the appeal, Garder N.V. asks the decision to be canceled and a new decision to be made to satisfy her claims. Referring to Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, believes that the defendant’s evasion of providing her with an up-to-date calculation of the debt under the loan agreement is an abuse of law. Draws attention to the fact that during the consideration of the case, when drawing up the payment schedule, the bank made an error in calculating the annuity payment, as a result of which she, the plaintiff, could not know under what conditions she assumed obligations to repay the loan. He believes that the court did not evaluate the actions of the defendant, who, without the consent of the borrower, distributed the funds received for annuity payments in violation of the schedule issued at the conclusion of the agreement.

According to Garder N.V., when an error in the calculations was discovered in July 2008, the defendant, to whom the rights under the loan agreement were transferred by assignment, was obliged to agree with the borrower on changing the terms of the agreement or, if the latter disagrees, to terminate the agreement.

The complaint also indicates disagreement with the court’s conclusions that the fact of filing claims against VTB 24 (CJSC) for the issuance of the requested documents has not been confirmed. At the same time, the plaintiff refers to the lack of response to the claim dated September 28, 2012, in connection with which she filed a claim against the bank, which was considered by the court on the merits with a decision made in February 2013.

The panel of judges considers it possible to consider the case in the absence of persons participating in the case who did not appear at the court hearing and were notified of the time and place of consideration of the case by the court of appeal.

Having checked the case materials and discussed the arguments of the appeal, the judicial panel finds no grounds for canceling the court decision.

In accordance with Art. 327.1. Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judicial panel verifies the legality and validity of the decision of the court of first instance within the limits of the arguments set out in the appeal.

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a loan agreement, a bank or other credit organization (lender) undertakes to provide funds (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.

As follows from the case materials, on October 4, 2007 between Garder N.V. and OJSC VTB Bank North-West entered into a loan agreement No. ***, under the terms of which the plaintiff was granted a loan in the amount of 845,100 rubles. at 13% per annum for the purchase of a vehicle. The loan repayment period is set until September 28, 2012.

In accordance with clause 3.3. agreement, loan repayment and interest payment for using the loan are carried out in the form of equal monthly annuity payments. The amount of the monthly payment, calculated according to the appropriate formula reflected in the text of the agreement, is 17,511 rubles. 84 kopecks The amount of the last payment is subject to recalculation depending on the actual balance of the amount to be paid. The final loan payment includes a payment to repay the entire remaining loan amount and a payment to pay accrued interest. Interest is paid based on the remaining loan amount for the actual number of days of the loan, starting from the date following the date of payment of the previous annuity payment until the actual final repayment of the loan (both dates inclusive).

According to the schedule, repayment of the loan and interest in the period from October 4, 2007 to September 28, 2012 should have been carried out by the plaintiff by making 59 payments, of which the first payment was in the amount of 15,250 rubles. 39 kopecks, the next 57 payments - in the amount of 17,511 rubles. 84 kopecks

In the period from September 1 to September 25, 2012 Garder N.V. must make the last annuity payment in the amount of 17,269 rubles. 52 kopecks, including towards repayment of the principal debt - 17,099 rubles. 46 kopecks and to pay off interest - 170 rubles. 06 kopecks, after which the balance of the outstanding loan amount was RUB 93,900.

Under the agreement on the assignment of rights (claims) dated July 11, 2008, the rights and obligations of the creditor under the agreement dated October 4, 2007 were transferred from OJSC VTB Bank North-West to VTB-24 (CJSC).

Allowing the presented Garder N.V. demands to recognize the loan agreement as fulfilled and to recognize as unlawful the bank’s demands to repay the debt under the loan agreement, the court correctly determined the legally significant circumstances and came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for satisfying them.

This conclusion is motivated, consistent with the evidence collected in the case, and there are no grounds for recognizing it as incorrect.

The decision of the Leninsky District Court of Ulyanovsk dated February 11, 2013 in civil case No. 2-480/2013 partially satisfied Garder N.V. claims against VTB-24 (CJSC): invalidated clause 3.3. concluded between Garder N.V. and OJSC "VTB Bank North-West" loan agreement dated October 4, 2007 regarding the priority of transferring funds from the borrower's account to repay the debt, was declared invalid clause 4.2.5. of the said loan agreement in terms of the lack of indication that third parties have a license to carry out banking activities when the lender transfers its rights and obligations under the loan agreement to third parties without the consent of the borrower. In satisfying claims for termination of a loan agreement and termination of a vehicle pledge agreement, the obligation to issue a vehicle passport; invalidation of clause 2.1.2. loan agreement regarding payment of commission for placing funds, pp. 3.4., 3.5. the agreement regarding the ban on early repayment of the loan and the introduction of a moratorium on early repayment of the loan for 91 days was refused.

By the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court dated June 4, 2013, this decision was left unchanged, and the appeals of Garder N.V. and VTB 24 (CJSC) – without satisfaction.

By virtue of Part 2 of Art. 61 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the circumstances established by these court decisions in the case under consideration have prejudicial significance.

These circumstances include the circumstances of loan repayment.

In particular, court decisions in a previously considered case established that the balance of the principal debt in the amount of 93,900 rubles. during the loan repayment period (until September 28, 2012) Garder N.V. did not repay, that is, did not fulfill the obligations under the loan agreement in full.

In this regard, the grounds for invalidating the loan repayment schedule and interest in terms of indicating the presence of a principal balance in the amount of RUB 93,900 after making the last payment. is not available, but the loan agreement concluded between Garder N.V. and OJSC VTB Bank North-West cannot be considered fulfilled. Accordingly, the bank’s claims for debt repayment are legitimate.

The arguments presented by the plaintiff in the appeal about the presence of an error in calculating the annuity payment, as a result of which she did not know the real terms of repayment of the loan, are subject to rejection. The fact of calculating annuity payments from a smaller loan amount than what was actually issued by Garder N.V., recognized by VTB 24 (CJSC), does not exclude the formation of a balance of the principal debt after making the last annuity payment.

The actual distribution by the bank of funds received on account of annuity payments on the balance of the principal debt (93,900 rubles) also does not affect.

As stated in the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court dated June 4, 2013, based on the interest rate agreed upon by the parties in the amount of 13% per annum, annuity payments for the period from October 4, 2007 to September 25, 2012 pay off the principal debt in the amount of 751,200 rubles. with a loan amount of 845,100 rubles.

The panel of judges agrees with the court's conclusions that there are no grounds for satisfying the claim regarding the requirements to recognize the bank's actions in withholding the passport of the vehicle pledged as unlawful; obligation to issue documents containing information on the balance of the account, the amount of the principal debt, accrued interest under the loan agreement, and the agreement on the assignment of the right of claim (assignment) concluded with OJSC "VTB Bank North-West" dated June 11, 2008, since these requirements are derived from claims recognized as unreasonable in terms of recognition of the contract as fulfilled.

In addition, as the court of first instance correctly pointed out, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the plaintiff sent claims to the bank for the issuance of relevant documents.

Claim dated September 28, 2012, to which Garder N.V. draws attention to in the appeal, it was not presented in the materials of the case under consideration, and the plaintiff did not refer to it in support of the claim.

The circumstances of the case have been examined with sufficient completeness, all the evidence presented has been given a legal assessment, which does not raise doubts about its correctness. There are no violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law that could lead to the cancellation or modification of the court decision.

In this regard, the court's decision is correct and cannot be overturned based on the arguments of the appeal.

Guided by articles 328-329 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judicial panel

O P R E D E L I L A:

The decision of the Leninsky District Court of Ulyanovsk dated September 24, 2013 is left unchanged, and the appeal of Garder N*** V*** is not satisfied.

Presiding

As a result, the Loan Repayment page will open, where you can make payments on this loan. You can also go to the Loan Repayment page in one of the following ways:

In the Loans list, select a loan, go to its page, click the Loan Transactions button and select Make a payment.
In the main menu of Sberbank Online, select Transfers and payments, and then in the Transfers information block, click the link Loan repayment in Sberbank.
Add the Loan Repayment page to your favorites. To do this, click the Add to Favorites link at the top right of the page. As a result, you will be able to go to the Loan Repayment page by clicking the corresponding link in the Favorites section in your personal menu.

Note. At the top of the page, for your convenience, an indicator of the progress of steps to pay for a differentiated loan is displayed.

How to check the loan calculation and payment schedule issued by VTB24 or Sberbank?

Regarding the last reason, we explain: the heirs receive not only assets, but also liabilities - debts that they must pay instead of the deceased. Under no circumstances should you stop paying after you have submitted an application for restructuring! When making a decision, credit discipline for the entire lending period is taken into account. Alas, the law does not oblige banks to restructure loans.
They have the right to refuse. Step-by-step instructions There are no standard restructuring programs. The issue is resolved individually with each borrower. Contact the bank branch and write a free-form application for restructuring. Additionally, you will be given a questionnaire for a preliminary analysis of the possibility of loan restructuring.
While the application is being considered, collect documents confirming the deterioration of your financial situation.

Announcement

Below is an itemized breakdown of this amount (principal and interest payments).

Interest rate.
Opening date – date of conclusion of the loan agreement.
The loan expiration date is the date by which you need to fully repay the loan amount including interest.
Loan account number - loan account number for the loan.
Repayment method: differentiated or annuity.
Loan servicing department - the Sberbank branch where the loan was issued.
Borrower – first name, patronymic and first letter of the borrower’s last name.
Co-borrowers - the first name, patronymic and first letter of the last name of each co-borrower.
Guarantors - the first name, patronymic and first letter of the last name of each guarantor.

On the Detailed Information tab you can also:

View information about tariffs for servicing loans at Sberbank.

Incorrect payment schedule

Attention

To do this, follow these steps:

Click the Create AutoPay link at the bottom of the page.
Set auto payment options.
Click the Save button.
Check the payment parameters and click the Confirm button to confirm. If you are a borrower or co-borrower, then you do not need to confirm the transaction with a one-time password. If you are a guarantor or pledgor, then you need to confirm the operation with a one-time password.

To do this, in the window that appears, enter the one-time password from the message received on your mobile phone, and then click the Confirm button.

As a result, the created auto payment will be saved in your personal menu in the My Auto Payments section. Attention! Before entering your password, make sure that the transaction details match the text of the message received on your mobile phone.

This can be a 2-NDFL certificate or in the form of a bank for the last 6 months, a work book or an extract from it with a note of dismissal or a record of a change of job, a copy of the order (or additional agreement) to reduce wages, an order to reduce the working hours , a certificate from the labor exchange, an extract from a salary card account, a tax return - any documents documenting a decrease in income. Or medical certificates and conclusions, if the decrease in income is associated with loss of ability to work. You need to collect documents not only for yourself, but also for the guarantor, co-borrower.

After reviewing the application, bank employees will contact you. They will ask additional questions, agree on the restructuring method and clarify the list of documents. Perhaps this conversation will take place over the phone, but usually they invite you to a personal conversation in the office.

After the discussion, you bring all the documents.

Sberbank loan calculator with early repayments

Calculate the total loan amount taking into account interest and loan term. To do this, click the Loan calculator link. As a result, a page on the Sberbank website will open, where you can perform loan calculations.
Print additional information on the loan. To do this, click the Print link

You can make a payment or fully repay the debt on a differentiated loan in Sberbank Online. Note. The procedure for early repayment of an annuity loan is described in the section Early repayment of an annuity loan. To make a payment on a differentiated loan, follow these steps:

On the loans page, in the Loans list for the desired loan, click the Transactions button and select Make a payment.

Conditions for restructuring loans from Sberbank

The Early Repayment tab is displayed for loan products with an annuity repayment method; for differentiated loans this tab is not available. Note. If the “Early repayment” function is not available for your loan, and on the Detailed information tab it is indicated that the repayment method for your loan is annuity (repayment in equal shares), you must contact the Sberbank branch where your loan was issued in order to be able to repay the loan early via Sberbank Online. When you go to the loan page, the Detailed Information tab is displayed by default. On the page of the loan you are viewing, in the list Other loans, a list of your loans opened with Sberbank is displayed. To go to the page of one of these loans, click the name of the selected loan.

Error establishing a connection to the database

Loan information

Detailed information on the loan
Making a payment on a differentiated loan

You can view detailed information on the loan and perform the following actions: top up your account, make a payment on a differentiated loan, view the payment schedule, repay an annuity loan early, add a loan to your favorites, view information about tariffs for servicing loans, perform loan calculations using a credit card calculator, print loan information. To do this, in the Loans list, click the name of the loan you are interested in or the icon next to the name.

Info

The listed measures can be applied either individually or in combination. Who can count Sberbank is accommodating and satisfies requests for restructuring in 90% of cases. But he is very bureaucratic - he loves “paperwork” and good reasons.

All requests are considered only in writing within the established time frame. The fact that you already have nothing to pay for the loan today is of no interest to anyone. Therefore, it is advisable to start restructuring as early as possible - before delinquencies begin.
Sberbank considers valid reasons for restructuring: a decrease in income as a result of a reduction in wages or dismissal; loss of additional sources of income; conscription into the army; the birth of a child and the onset of parental leave; serious illness and disability; death of the borrower.

Sberbank operators incorrectly calculated the payment schedule

In this case, he will have to pay at least 28 days of interest on 900 rubles (6.90 rubles) and another 100 rubles of the principal debt. The total amount of payments for 2 months, which led to a reduction in the principal debt to 800 rubles. by 03/01/2010 215.39 rub.2. Vasya came to repay the debt for the first time much earlier, on January 11, 2010.

Important

He paid interest for 10 days on 1000 rubles. (2.73 rubles) and repaid the principal debt in the amount of 1000 rubles. The next time he appeared, as in the previous example, on 03/01/2010, he paid interest for 49 days on 900 rubles (12.08 rubles) plus another 100 rubles of the principal debt. The total amount of payments for 2 months, which led to a reduction in the principal debt to 800 rubles.

by 03/01/2010 214.81 rubles. As you can see, in the second case, Vasya paid ~ 60 kopecks for two months.

Having listened to the participants in the process and examined the case materials, the court finds the claim subject to satisfaction in part for the following reasons.

The case materials established that DD.MM.YYYY between Sberbank of Russia OJSC and FULL NAME1 a loan agreement No. was concluded in the amount No., at 22.40% per annum, for a period of 60 months.

According to the payment schedule under the loan agreement No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, interest is charged for using the loan, but no payment is charged to repay the principal debt.

DD.MM.YYYY a claim was submitted to Sberbank of Russia PJSC for the issuance of responses to requests from DD.MM.YYYY and DD.MM.YYYY, for the issuance of a new schedule under the loan agreement No. from DD.MM.YYYY, to return the funds in the amount of No., adjust your credit history.

DD.MM.YYYY PJSC Sberbank reported that the period for consideration of the application from DD.MM.YYYY has been extended from DD.MM.YYYY for a period of 90 days.

The case materials established that FULL NAME1 repeatedly applied to PJSC Sberbank of Russia, which is confirmed by a statement from DD.MM.YYYY, from DD.MM.YYYY.

In accordance with the data presented by the defendant PJSC Sberbank of Russia, it is indicated that there is no overdue debt under the loan agreement No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, and there are also no overdue payments. The overpaid amount in the amount of No. was returned to the payer’s account.

At the court hearing, the plaintiff’s representative did not deny that a payment schedule has currently been drawn up, taking into account monthly payments to repay the principal debt. When leaving the schedule, the amounts withheld by the bank were taken into account, from which accruals were made to repay the principal debt for the period from December 2014 to the present. They also did not deny the fact of receiving the amount no.

Decided:

The claims of FULL NAME1 against the public joint-stock company "Sberbank of Russia" for the recovery of funds, penalties, compensation for moral damages, and a fine are partially satisfied.

To recover from PJSC Sberbank of Russia in favor of FULL NAME1 a penalty in the amount of No., in compensation for moral damage No. No., a fine in the amount of No.

To recover from the public joint-stock company "Sberbank of Russia" in the income of the municipality "in reimbursement of state duty No.

An appeal against the decision can be filed with the court within a month from the date the decision is made in final form, through the Industrial District Court.

Presiding judge: FULL NAME6

The reasoned decision was made by DD.MM.YYYY.

Court:

Industrial District Court of Khabarovsk (Khabarovsk Territory)

Plaintiffs:

Nikolaeva G.A.

Defendants:

PJSC Sberbank of Russia

Judges of the case:

Osipova I.N. (judge)

Judicial practice on:

Moral damage and its compensation, compensation for moral damage

Judicial practice on the application of Art. 151, 1100 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Lost profit

Judicial practice on the application of Art. 15, 393 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

Recovery of damages

Judicial practice on the application of Art. 393 Civil Code of the Russian Federation

When issuing a loan, the bank draws up a loan agreement. The loan agreement specifies the amount, date of issue, term, type of payments, interest rate. The loan agreement also specifies the formula by which the current loan payment is calculated. The bank also issues a payment schedule, where the above parameters are indicated and you can always see how much and when you must pay the bank.
However, sometimes there is no payment schedule, or there were early repayments and you need to understand whether the bank calculated the current payment correctly. This will help you. A special feature of this program is the calculation of the payment schedule taking into account dates. The same payment schedules, taking into account dates, are issued by VTB24 and Sberbank or any Moscow bank.
Initially, to check the results of payment schedule calculations, you need to go to the websites of VTB or Sberbank. This is a hassle and the search can take a long time.
Find loan calculators there and do the math.
However, even here the calculation will not be correct.
Can be used

Early repayment of a loan with annuity payments at Sberbank

To calculate early loan repayment you need

Calculate monthly payment
Calculate the early repayment amount
Calculate how the term or amount of the next payment will change in case of early repayment

N – number of whole months
i – loan rate per month (i.e. annual rate / 12)
The loan amount from Sberbank is without the down payment amount, i.e. the amount specified in the contract.
Let's calculate a loan of 1 million. rubles at 12% for a period of 60 months. We will consider the date of issue to be January 12, 2012.
Substituting the data into the formula, we get 22244.45 - the amount of the monthly payment. This is what the payment schedule looks like

Let's say we made an early repayment with a reduction in the amount - this means that early repayment reduces the amount of the monthly payment by .
Let's add early repayment in March 2012, before the next payment date. This early repayment will be taken into account in March and the new payment will only be made in April.

Let's figure out how the calculation is carried out. After payment on February 12, 2012, the principal amount will be 975,733.43. Let us subtract from this amount the amount of early repayment and the amount to repay the principal debt for February. It is equal to 12203.13.

975733.43 — 100000 — 12203.13= 862766.45

The resulting amount is the principal amount after early repayment.
Now let's calculate the monthly payment. To do this, let’s substitute the amount 862766.45 into the formula of the Sberbank calculator.
Since 3 months have already passed from the date the loan was issued, the new loan term will be equal to

n= 60 – 3 = 57.

As a result, we get a monthly payment according to the above formula 19931.25

Calculating a loan in Sberbank using a loan calculator for iPad/iphone

Let's look at payment schedules obtained using a loan calculator and from the Sberbank of the Russian Federation website.

If you look closely, the mortgage payments are the same.
However, for the Sberbank calculator there is no detailing by dates; only months are displayed.
The difference in the total amount of interest - The amount of overpayment for the entire period is RUB 827,291.47 versus RUB 827,008.2. The difference for a period of 10 years is insignificant.
Therefore, we can conclude that the calculation results of our loan calculator and the Sberbank loan calculator are the same. This calculator can be used instead of the Sberbank loan calculator.

Sberbank loan calculator and formulas for calculating annuity payments

More details on how the loan payment schedule is calculated and what formulas are used can be found on the page. These formulas are standard and are used in many banks. Questions can be asked in the comments to the article.
Sberbank often calculates loans taking into account weekends and holidays. Therefore, the payment schedules for the Sberbank loan calculator and the online calculator presented on the website will differ

We draw your attention to the fact that this decision could be appealed to a higher court and overturned

CHELYABINSK REGIONAL COURT

Judge Vazhenin G.S.

Judicial panel for civil cases of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court consisting of:
presiding Zinovieva E.V.,
judges Vlasov O.P., Belykh A.A.,
with secretary B.,
considered in open court a civil case on the appeal of Sberbank of Russia OJSC against the decision of the Central District Court of Chelyabinsk dated July 31, 2013 on the claim of S.N. to Sberbank of Russia OJSC to invalidate the payment schedule under the loan agreement.
After hearing the report of Judge E.V. Zinovieva about the circumstances of the case and the arguments of the appeal, the representative of the defendant Sberbank of Russia OJSC S.A., who supported the complaint, the representative of the plaintiff S.N. - Ch., who considered the complaint unfounded, the judicial panel

Installed:

S.N. filed a lawsuit against the open joint-stock company "Sberbank of Russia" (hereinafter OJSC "Sberbank of Russia") to invalidate the payment schedule No. 1 dated January 24, 2013 under the loan agreement No. **** dated January 15, 2013, concluded between it and the defendant, forcing Sberbank of Russia OJSC to recalculate the annuity payment, establishing an equal monthly annuity payment for the entire loan period until January 04, 2028 in the amount of **** rubles 62 kopecks, to issue a payment schedule in accordance with the recalculation.
In support of the claims, she indicated that when agreeing on the terms and concluding the loan agreement, she was informed about the provision of a loan on the terms of monthly annuity payments in the amount of **** rubles 62 kopecks. After signing the loan agreement, the plaintiff was given a payment schedule that provided for unequal payments, which contradicts clause 2.2 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 11, 2000 “On measures to develop the housing mortgage lending system in the Russian Federation.”
The plaintiff did not participate in the court hearing and asked to consider the case in her absence.
The plaintiff's representative at the court hearing insisted on satisfying the claims.
The representative of the defendant Sberbank of Russia OJSC did not recognize the claim at the court hearing, pointing out that in violation of the requirements of Art. 450, 452 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the plaintiff did not declare a change in the contract in pre-trial order. At the conclusion of the contract, an agreement was reached between the parties on all essential terms, including the amount of the annuity payment.
The court decided to partially satisfy the claims. Invalidated payment schedule No. 1 dated January 24, 2013 under loan agreement No. **** dated January 15, 2013, concluded between S.N. and OJSC Sberbank of Russia.
Obliged the branch of Sberbank of Russia OJSC Chelyabinsk Branch N 8597 to recalculate the annuity payment under the loan agreement N **** dated January 15, 2013, concluded between S.N. and OJSC "Sberbank of Russia", with the establishment of an equal monthly annuity payment for the entire loan period from February 24, 2013 to January 24, 2028 in the amount of **** rubles 62 kopecks.
I collected from Sberbank of Russia OJSC a state duty in the amount of **** rubles for the local budget.
Disagreeing with the decision, the defendant Sberbank of Russia OJSC filed an appeal, in which he asks to cancel the decision of the court of first instance and make a new decision to refuse to satisfy the claim, due to the discrepancy between the conclusions of the court of first instance and the circumstances of the case, violation of substantive law. Indicates that the plaintiff, through a free expression of will, entered into a loan agreement. The parties agreed on its terms, including the payment schedule. Significant violations of the terms of the contract, which, by virtue of clause 2 of Art. 450 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation can serve as a basis for changing the agreement in court, but the Bank did not allow it. The Government Decree of January 11, 2000 “On measures to develop the housing lending system in the Russian Federation” does not establish a strict definition of the procedure for annuity payment, nor does it prohibit the establishment in a loan agreement of several lending periods with different amounts of annuity payment.
Believes that the plaintiff is abusing his right by demanding a loan on terms that were not agreed upon by the parties.
Plaintiff S.N. she was duly notified of the time and place of consideration of the case by the court of appeal, did not appear in court, did not inform the court about the reasons for her failure to appear, therefore the judicial panel, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 327, Part 3 of Article 167 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, finds it possible to consider the case in her absence .
Having discussed the arguments of the appeal, heard representatives of the plaintiff and defendant, checked the case materials within the limits established by Part 1 of Art. 327.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judicial panel comes to the following conclusion.
The court established and the case materials confirm that on January 15, 2013, between S.N. (borrower) and Sberbank of Russia OJSC (lender) concluded a loan agreement N ****, according to which the Borrower was provided with a loan for the “Purchase of housing under construction” in the amount of **** rubles 21 kopecks at 15.5% per annum for investment in the construction of the facility real estate: apartment N **** total design area **** sq. m, located at the address Chelyabinsk region, Chelyabinsk, microdistrict **** in the Kurchatovsky district residential building ****, for a period of 180 months from the date of its actual provision.
The borrower agreed to repay the loan received and pay interest on the loan in the amount, on time and under the terms of the agreement.
Clause 4.1. The loan agreement states that the loan is repaid by the borrower in monthly annuity payments in accordance with the Payment Schedule.
Payment of interest for using the loan is made by the borrower on a monthly basis simultaneously with the repayment of the loan within the time limits specified in the payment schedule (clause 4.2 of the agreement).
On January 24, 2013, the parties signed payment schedule No. 1, which is an integral part of the loan agreement, according to which the monthly loan payment for the period from 02/24/2013 to 05/24/2018 is **** rubles 92 kopecks, 06/24/2018 - ** ** ruble 87 kopecks, from 07/24/2018 to 12/24/2027 - **** ruble 33 kopecks, 01/24/2028 (last payment) - **** ruble 05 kopecks (case sheet 4 - 7 ).
The payment amount determined by the schedule includes interest for using the loan, accrued on the balance of the principal debt, taking into account the number of days of the billing period, and the amount sent to repay the principal debt.
According to paragraph 1 of Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a loan agreement, a bank or other credit organization (lender) undertakes to provide funds (loan) 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 Art. 30 of the Federal Law of December 2, 1990 N 395-1 “On Banks and Banking Activities”, relations between the Bank of Russia, credit institutions and their clients are carried out on the basis of agreements, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
According to Part 1 of Art. 432 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement is considered concluded if an agreement is reached between the parties, in the form required in appropriate cases, on all the essential terms of the agreement.
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, civil legislation is based on the recognition of the equality of participants in the relations regulated by it, the inviolability of property, freedom of contract, the inadmissibility of arbitrary interference by anyone in private affairs, the need for the unhindered exercise of civil rights, ensuring the restoration of violated rights, and their judicial protection.
By virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 422 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the contract must comply with the rules obligatory for the parties, established by law or other legal acts (imperative norms) in force at the time of its conclusion.
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 contestable or does not provide for other consequences of violation (Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as amended in force on the day the contract is concluded).
By virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 02/07/1992 N 2300-1 “On the protection of consumer rights” (hereinafter referred to as Law N 2300-1) 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 rights protection , are declared invalid.
The parties to the agreement independently determine the contractual terms regarding the procedure, methods and timing of repayment of the principal debt and payment of interest.
The terms of the loan agreement must be formulated in such a way as to ensure compliance with the requirements of Law N 2300-1 in terms of providing the consumer with information accessible to his understanding in the presence of a presumption that the consumer lacks special knowledge about the properties and characteristics of the product (work, service) (clause 2 Article 8 of Law No. 2300-1).
According to Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citizens and legal entities are free to enter into an agreement (clause 1). The parties may enter into an agreement, either provided for or not provided for by law or other legal acts (clause 2). The terms of the agreement are determined at the discretion of the parties, except in cases where the content of the relevant term is prescribed by law or other legal acts. In cases where the condition of the contract is provided for by a norm that is applied to the extent that the agreement of the parties does not establish otherwise (dispositive norm), the parties may, by their agreement, exclude its application or establish a condition different from that provided for in it. In the absence of such an agreement, the terms of the contract are determined by a dispositive norm (clause 4).
At the same time, the legislation does not contain any mandatory requirement establishing an exhaustive list of the terms of the loan agreement and prohibiting the establishment of conditions not directly provided for by law, including conditions on the amount of interest, the loan term, and the payment procedure.
Concluding that the terms of the loan agreement dated January 15, 2013, specified in Payment Schedule No. 1, are invalid due to its non-compliance with the law (Article 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the court of first instance did not indicate which particular law or legal act establishing mandatory norms, contradicts the disputed agreement.
The concept for the development of the housing mortgage lending system in the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 11, 2000 N 28 (as amended on May 8, 2002) “On measures to develop the housing mortgage lending system in the Russian Federation”, the inconsistency of which the disputed agreement was pointed out by the court, defines the place and role of housing mortgage lending in housing finance, as well as the state strategy in the formation and development of this area, the main goals and principles of the formation of the housing mortgage lending system, outlines specific directions for improving the legislative and regulatory framework of housing mortgage lending at the federal level, as well as at level of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities. However, this Concept does not establish mandatory requirements when determining the procedure for settlements under loan agreements.
The principle of freedom of contract is a fundamental principle for the development of property (civil) turnover. In accordance with it, subjects of civil law are free to enter into an agreement, that is, to choose a counterparty and to determine the terms of their agreement, as well as to choose one or another model (form) of contractual relations.
The autonomy and independence of participants in civil transactions, as a general rule, excludes the emergence of any legal relations between them other than their agreed common will (by the will of only one of them or by order of a public authority).
When concluding the loan agreement dated January 15, 2013 and the schedule dated January 24, 2013, which is an integral part thereof, the parties, acting of their own will and in their own interest, stipulated that the borrower would pay for the borrowed funds in accordance with the schedule, with calculation of interest for the actual use of the loan, and monthly repayment of part of the principal debt.
The provisions of the loan agreement regulating the procedure for calculating interest in annuity repayment of debt with the definition of several periods in which different amounts of annuity payment are established, contain all the necessary conditions provided for by civil law for this type of transaction, the size of monthly payments, including those sent to repay the principal debt, agreed upon in the contract and schedule.
Clause 3.1 of the Agreement specifies the terms and definitions used in the agreement, in particular, annuity payments - equal cash payments paid at certain intervals to repay the loan received and interest for using the loan.
At the same time, neither clause 3.1 nor article 4 (the procedure for using a loan and its return) of the loan agreement stipulates that the amount of the annuity payment is set unchanged throughout the entire period of validity of the agreement.
When deciding to force Sberbank of Russia OJSC to change the payment schedule established by the agreement, i.e. on changing the loan agreement at the initiative of the borrower, the court did not take into account that the law (Article 167 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) does not provide for such a consequence of the invalidity of the transaction as changing the terms of the agreement at the initiative of one of the parties.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 450 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, at the request of one of the parties, the contract can be changed or terminated by a court decision only in the event of a significant violation of the contract by the other party; in other cases provided for by this Code, other laws or agreement.
A violation of the contract by one of the parties is considered significant, which entails such damage for the other party that it is significantly deprived of what it had the right to count on when concluding the contract.
A demand to change or terminate a contract may be submitted by a party to the court only after receiving a refusal from the other party to the proposal to change or terminate the contract or failure to receive a response within the period specified in the proposal or established by law or the contract, and in its absence - within thirty days (p 2 Article 452 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
The plaintiff did not provide evidence to the court of the existence of legal grounds for changing the terms of the loan agreement at the borrower’s initiative, as well as evidence of compliance with the pre-trial procedure for changing it.
Clause 3 of Art. 450 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that in the event of a unilateral refusal to fulfill a contract in whole or in part, when such refusal is permitted by law or by agreement of the parties, the contract is considered respectively terminated or amended.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article 12 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 02/07/1992 N 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, if the consumer is not given the opportunity to immediately receive information about the product (work, service) upon concluding a contract, he has the right to demand from the seller ( performer) compensation for losses caused by unjustified avoidance of concluding a contract, and if the contract is concluded, within a reasonable time, refuse to perform it and demand the return of the amount paid for the goods and compensation for other losses.
The plaintiff’s reference to providing her with information about a different monthly payment amount when concluding the contract on October 15, 2013 is not supported by evidence.
In the information on the conditions for the provision, use and repayment of the loan “Purchase of housing under construction”, with which S.N. was familiarized with, the full cost of the loan and the preliminary loan repayment schedule were indicated, which established the procedure for settlement of the loan the same as in the contested schedule (case sheets 37 - 42).
The disputed payment schedule indicates both the amounts payable on each specified date and the distribution of payments to repay interest for the use of the loan and the principal debt, as well as the total amount payable to the Bank for the entire period of validity of the loan agreement, i.e. information about this banking service is presented in an accessible form. Having signed the payment schedule, S.N. agreed with the established payment procedure, did not refuse to enter into an agreement on the terms specified in the schedule, accepted the execution of the agreement by the Bank, received the loan amount and disposed of it.
The plaintiff’s representative’s reference to the fact that setting the amount of monthly payments at a significantly larger amount in the period before June 2018 is discrimination against the borrower on the basis of age, in the opinion of the judicial panel, is untenable.
The loan agreement is not public. The bank, when deciding to issue a loan to a specific borrower, the loan amount, the loan repayment period and interest payment, has the right to assess financial risks, including the risk of loan non-repayment, taking into account the borrower’s financial situation and his ability to work. Establishing a smaller monthly payment after the borrower reaches S.N. retirement age, under such conditions cannot be considered discrimination. Moreover, this condition of the contract does not impose any additional obligations on the borrower. On the contrary, in accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 01/15/2013 and the payment schedule dated 01/24/2013, the total amount payable by the plaintiff to the Bank is **** rubles. 42 kopecks, and in accordance with the schedule that the plaintiff asks to establish, the total amount of payments for the same period is **** rubles. 71 kop. (ld. 46 - 50).
Assessing the presented evidence in its entirety and interrelation, the judicial panel believes that there are no grounds for recognizing the terms of the loan agreement on the procedure for repaying the loan, established in the payment schedule dated January 24, 2013, as invalid, and changing the terms of the loan agreement, and the requirements of S.N. are not subject to satisfaction.
Due to the incorrect determination by the court of the circumstances relevant to the case, the inconsistency of the court’s conclusions set out in the decision with the circumstances of the case, the violation (misapplication) of substantive law (clauses 1, 3, 4, part 1, article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation), the decision of the court of first instance cannot be recognized as legal and is subject to cancellation with the adoption of a new decision.
Guided by Art. 328, 329 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial panel

Defined:

The decision of the Central District Court of Chelyabinsk dated July 31, 2013 is canceled and a new decision is made:
In satisfying the claims of S.N. to OJSC Sberbank of Russia to invalidate the payment schedule under the loan agreement and to force the preparation of a new payment schedule - refuse.

Ulyanovsk Regional Court - judicial act. How to check the loan calculation and payment schedule issued by VTB24 or Sberbank? What to do if the payment schedule is calculated incorrectly