The documents of the case revealed that the company (the appellant) had issued an endorsement of the value of the debt and paid its value during the consideration of the case before the elementary court.

The court said that the company's defence that the debt resulted from a loan contract with an exaggerated interest rate was irrelevant because it had already paid the debt and did not object to the interest rate stipulated. The court said that the court had the authority to evaluate the contract signed between the disputed parties and determine its legal nature. The court said that the court established its ruling on the grounds of solid evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal.