Investor paid over a million hryvnias for an apartment, but the cooperative did not recognize the payment: how to prove it if the receipt has defects — Supreme Court

The practice of investing in residential construction is often accompanied by disputes regarding the validity of evidence of funds transfer. This issue becomes especially relevant when the developer or cooperative denies receiving the money, citing deficiencies in the accounting documentation.

In the Supreme Court ruling dated June 24, 2026, in case No. 344/13846/24, the Civil Cassation Court examined whether formal defects in the receipt to the incoming cash order can automatically indicate the absence of payment and, accordingly, deprive the investor of the right to demand protection of their property rights.

Case circumstances

In July 2024, the investor filed a lawsuit against the servicing cooperative to recognize property rights to an apartment.

The plaintiff stated that on May 24, 2022, the parties concluded an agreement on a targeted contribution to the activity, according to which the cooperative undertook to build and transfer the apartment to him, and he paid the agreed targeted contribution amounting to UAH 1,079,785, confirmed by the receipt to the incoming cash order.

According to the contract, the building was to be commissioned in the fourth quarter of 2023, but this did not happen. The plaintiff also noted that he did not receive responses to his inquiries regarding the construction status and the possibility of assignment of rights under the contract, and therefore requested recognition of his property rights to the apartment.

The court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, denied the claim.

In denying the claim, the courts gave decisive importance to the defects in the receipt to the incoming cash order, in particular the absence of the cashier's signature and the signature made in the "Chief Accountant" field without indicating identifiable information about the person.

Disagreeing with the decisions, the plaintiff filed a cassation appeal. He argued that the courts incorrectly applied substantive law, did not examine all evidence, and unjustifiably did not consider the receipt to the incoming cash order as proof of the targeted contribution.

Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court indicated that after fulfilling the investment conditions, the investor acquires property rights (equivalent to ownership rights) to the object and, after the completion of the real estate construction, acquires ownership rights as the original owner by registering property rights to the object in their name.

The court emphasized that the key issue in resolving this dispute is establishing not only the conclusion but also the direct performance by the plaintiff and defendant of the disputed targeted contribution agreement, in particular the plaintiff's payment for the real estate object, on the basis of which the investor acquires property rights to the investment object and ownership rights to the constructed real estate.

The Supreme Court paid special attention to the evaluation of primary accounting documents and noted that confirmation of a business transaction is its actual execution and proper documentation in accordance with the requirements of part two of Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine "On Accounting and Financial Reporting in Ukraine" and clause 2.4 of Regulation No. 88 on primary accounting documents.

The court also stressed that even if there are defects in primary documents, the actual execution of the business transaction can be confirmed by other evidence.

At the same time, in case of defects in primary documents and denial by a party of the fact of the business transaction, the parties are not deprived of the opportunity to prove these facts by other evidence that convincingly testifies to the actual circumstances of the supply of goods.

It should be taken into account that the defining feature of a business transaction is that as a result of its execution, there must be a real movement of assets.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that the content of clause 25 of Regulation No. 148 allows cash acceptance in the cash register by an incoming cash order signed by the chief accountant. This provision does not contain a reservation that cash acceptance is exclusively by the cashier.

The court noted that the defendant did not refute that the signature in the "Chief Accountant" field belongs to another person. Without providing proper, admissible, and sufficient evidence to refute this, the courts' conclusions that the business transaction was executed and documented not by the chief accountant or a person unauthorized by the head of the institution/enterprise are premature.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Tax Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine "On Accounting and Financial Reporting in Ukraine" do not define the inconsistency of civil-law powers of a person to act on behalf of a legal entity as an independent ground for invalidity of primary documents, and primary documents drawn up by such a person do not lose legal significance in case of actual movement of assets.

As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts prematurely denied the claim, did not properly examine all evidence, and incorrectly applied substantive law.

Therefore, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

Effectively, the Court emphasized that formal defects in the receipt or incoming cash order alone cannot automatically indicate the absence of payment or deprive the primary document of evidentiary value if these circumstances are not disproved by proper evidence.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.