Background

A claimant filed a case against defendants requesting that the court order them to announce bankruptcy and appoint the last defendant as insolvency practitioner.

The court ruled that the first five defendants announce bankruptcy and appointed the sixth defendant as insolvency practitioner.

The first defendant appealed and the appeal court abandoned the ruling and approved a protective reconciliation.

The claimant appealed by cassation.

Decision

Before the cassation court the claimant argued that the ruling has erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation as the court had violated the law when it accepted new requests such as the protective reconciliation.

The court held that this argument was valid as the case documents revealed that the request of protective reconciliation had not been introduced to the elementary court previously and thus could not be introduced to the appeal court for the first time.

The court therefore repealed the ruling.