Dzerzhinsky District Court of Orenburg ( Orenburg region) - Civil and administrative

Legal acts, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements - in accordance with the customs of business transactions and other commonly required requirements. By virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation under a contract of sale, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) to the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for ...

Decision No. 2-1723/2018 2-1723/2018~M-1418/2018 M-1418/2018 of September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-1723/2018

Leninsky district court of Kirov (Kirov region) - Civil and administrative

Consideration of the case was duly notified, the court did not notify the reasons for the failure to appear. The court, after hearing the parties, having studied the written materials of the case, comes to the following. According to paragraph 1 of Article 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a sales contract, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for ...

Decision No. 2-2806/2018 2-2806/2018~M-2373/2018 M-2373/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-2806/2018

Oktyabrsky District Court of Ufa (Republic of Bashkortostan) - Civil and administrative

Agreement. In this case, the terms of the contract are determined by agreement of the parties, except when the content of the relevant contract is prescribed by law or other legal acts. According to Part 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a contract of sale, one party (the seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (the buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay ...

Decision No. 2-3857/2018 2-3857/2018~M-3373/2018 M-3373/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-3857/2018

Central District Court of Tolyatti (Samara Region) - Civil and administrative

Did not have. The court, having heard the explanations of the representative of the plaintiff, having checked the case materials, considers the claims of the plaintiff to be partially satisfied on the following grounds. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a sales contract, one party (the seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (the buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for ...

Decision No. 2-801/2018 2-801/2018~M-833/2018 M-833/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-801/2018

Vyatskopolyansky district court (Kirov region) - Civil and administrative

And the requirements of the law, other legal acts. A unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and a unilateral change in its conditions are not allowed, except as otherwise provided by law. According to Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a sales contract, one party (the seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (the buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for ...

Decision No. 2-2319/2018 2-2319/2018~M-2096/2018 M-2096/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-2319/2018

Dinskoy District Court Krasnodar region) - Civil and administrative

Postal address: , Dinskoe rural settlement, DNT "Gardener", . 02/01/2006 the land plot was put on the cadastral register and assigned a cadastral number. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a sales contract, one party (the seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (the buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for ...

Decision No. 2-1898/2018 2-1898/2018~M-1534/2018 M-1534/2018 dated September 28, 2018 in case No. 2-1898/2018

Ustinovsky District Court of Izhevsk ( Udmurt republic) - Civil and administrative

The contract is considered concluded if the parties, in the form required in the relevant cases, reach an agreement on all the essential terms of the contract. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a sales contract, one party (the seller) undertakes to transfer the thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (the buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay for ...

Decision No. 2-188/2018 2-188/2018(2-3975/2017;)~M-3436/2017 2-3975/2017 M-3436/2017 dated September 27, 2018 in case No. 2-188/2018

Sverdlovsk District Court of Kostroma ( Kostroma region) - Civil and administrative

Transfer the thing (goods) to the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this product and pay a certain amount of money (price) for it (clause 1, article 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). In accordance with Art. 551 para. 1, Art. 558 p. 3 of the Civil Code Russian Federation transfer of ownership of real estate under a contract for the sale of real estate ...

See last month's changes

ConsultantPlus, 03/17/2010

Guide to Judicial Practice: Purchase and Sale. General provisions

Chapter 30

§ 1. General provisions on the sale

Article 454

Issues of judicial practice on the interpretation and application of Art. 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation

1. Consequence of the absence in the consignment note of a reference to the contract concluded between the parties >>>

2. The possibility of recognizing the executed sales contract as not concluded >>>

3. Consequences of the transfer of goods in the absence of a concluded supply contract >>>

4. Purchase and sale of a bill >>>

5. Purchase and sale of receivables >>>

6. The possibility of applying the provisions on the sale and purchase to the sale of a share in the authorized capital >>>

7. The possibility of applying the provisions of Ch. 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation when transferring exclusive rights >>>

8. Correlation of REPO transactions with sale and purchase agreement >>>

1. Consequence of the absence in the consignment note of a reference to the contract concluded between the parties

1.1. Conclusion from judicial practice: The absence in the consignment note of a reference to the supply contract concluded between the parties indicates that the goods were supplied under a one-time purchase and sale transaction.

Arbitrage practice:

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District of October 13, 2009 in case N A17-4447 / 2008

"... As follows from the case file, the Company (supplier) and the Entrepreneur (buyer) entered into a supply agreement dated February 1, 2007 N 425/07 for the supply of food products. The plaintiff presented invoices for the period from February to September 2007 in support of the debt N 5523, 6556, 9299, 10601, 12268, 15188, 15715, 16257, 17092, 20318, 20320, 20322, 20863, 24125, 25838, 25883, 26461, 28081, 30163, 30165, 32348, 33103, 33566, 33567, 33577 , 33569, 33578, 36631, 41094, 41115, 41082 for a total amount of 677,208 rubles, powers of attorney to them and invoices for payment.

The Court of Appeal found that the invoices, powers of attorney to receive goods and invoices do not contain a reference to the supply agreement dated February 1, 2007 N 425/07, therefore, applying Article 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it made a reasonable conclusion that there was a dispute between the parties one-time transactions with the obligation of the defendant to pay for the goods after the transfer of the goods ... "

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District of September 25, 2009 in case N A43-29475 / 2008-29-441

"... Since the consignment note and consignment note No. 00827 dated November 8, 2007, in violation of paragraph 1.2 of the disputed contract, do not contain references to it, the courts rightly regarded the delivery of the consignment notes as non-contractual.

These waybills contain information about the name, price and quantity of the goods accepted by Trade House "Rastyapino" LLC, which makes it possible to qualify the actions of the parties as the conclusion of a one-time purchase and sale transaction.

Thus, the obligations of the parties to transfer and accept the disputed goods are subject to the application of the rules of § 1 of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on obligations arising from sales contracts ... "

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the West Siberian District of October 21, 2009 in case N A46-5217 / 2009

"... The Court of Appeal, when re-examining the materials of the case, came to the conclusion that the supply of alcoholic products was carried out under one-time transactions, executed by consignment notes containing information about the name and quantity of the goods transferred. At the same time, the Court of Appeal considered that it was not there are grounds for evaluating the supply contract dated 20.12.2005 N 1015 in the case, since the submitted consignment notes do not contain indications of the transfer of alcoholic products in pursuance of this contract.

The Cassation Board believes that these conclusions of the courts were made in accordance with Article 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of a full and comprehensive study of all the circumstances and evidence in their totality in the case, with the correct application of substantive law.

We must agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the supply of products under the named consignment notes is a one-time sale and purchase transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation apply ... "

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated January 18, 2010 N KG-A40 / 14193-09 in case N A40-57077 / 09-128-377

"... So, from the consignment notes submitted to the case file, it is seen that the contract dated May 28, 2007 N 718 is indicated as the basis for the supply.

Meanwhile, the courts of first and appeal instances, which considered the present dispute on the merits of the stated claims, found that the contract with the specified details was not concluded between the parties.

At the same time, in the consignment notes submitted to the case file there are no references to contracts N 44713 and 44795 dated January 01, 2007, N 44874 dated December 31, 2007, in connection with which, the courts had no grounds for applying the provisions provided for by these contracts .

The courts of both instances rightfully qualified the disputed legal relations of the parties as one-time purchase and sale transactions, in which the conditions for the name and price of the goods are agreed upon by the plaintiff and the defendant in the invoices, which does not contradict Art. 432, part 3 of Art. 455 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation..."

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District of October 14, 2009 N KG-A41 / 10266-09 in case N A41-18039 / 09

"... The courts of both instances established that the delivery of goods by the plaintiff to the defendant's address was confirmed by waybill No. 298179 of August 11, 2005 for the total amount of 229,106 rubles.

Court of Appeal, evaluating said consignment note according to the rules of Art. 71 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, came to the conclusion that it is a one-time sale and purchase transaction, since the supply contract dated August 01, 2005 N 05090030-86, to which the plaintiff refers in the statement of claim, is not indicated in this invoice as the basis for delivery .

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the buyer is obliged to pay for the goods immediately before or after the seller transfers the goods to him, unless otherwise provided by this Code, other law, other legal acts or the contract of sale and does not follow from the essence of the obligation.

Since the delivery of goods under invoice N 298179 dated August 11, 2005 was not carried out under contract N 05090030-86 dated August 01, 2005, the court of appeal came to the correct conclusion that the claims for the recovery of a penalty in the amount of 152,553 rubles. 31 kopecks, based on the specified agreement, are not subject to satisfaction ... "

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District of July 22, 2002 N KG-A40 / 4597-02

"... By the decision of March 6, 2002 of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow, left unchanged by the decision of the appellate instance of the same court of May 8, 2002, the claim of ORFE CJSC for the recovery of 180,734 rubles from Kubanmedstrakh-Pharmacy LLC was satisfied. constituting the debt for medical products supplied in pursuance of the contract dated February 6, 1998 N 46/98k under invoices N 9801171 and 9801167.

Recognizing the claims as subject to satisfaction, the courts of the first and appellate instances proceeded from the fact that the disputed relations arose from one-time purchase and sale transactions, since invoices N 9801171 and 9801167 do not contain references to the contract of February 6, 1998 N 46 / 98k, and the defendant had to pay for the received products within the time limits established by Article 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

In resolving this dispute, the courts of the first and appellate instances fully and comprehensively examined the evidence presented, established all the circumstances relevant to the case, made the correct conclusions both about the nature of the disputed relations and about the existence of grounds for satisfying the claims, and did not allow violations of any norms. substantive law, nor the norms of procedural law..."

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District of October 12, 2009 N F09-7749 / 09-C3 in case N A50-5692 / 2009

"... As follows from the case file, on January 17, 2008, between the Permzheltrans-Service company (supplier) and the Perm Locomotive Locomotive Repair Plant Remputmash company (customer), a supply contract No. 07 was concluded, in accordance with paragraph 1.1 of which the supplier undertook deliver, and the customer accept and pay for the products in accordance with the specifications that are an integral part of the contract.

The Arbitration Court found that the company "Permzheltrans-service" delivered goods to the company "Perm locomotive repair plant" Remputmash "according to the consignment note dated 08.10.2008 N 19 in the amount of 3,003,890 rubles. 60 kopecks.

Since the company "Perm locomotive repair plant" Remputmash "did not pay for the cost of the delivered goods, the company" Permzheltrans-service "in accordance with paragraph 7.2 of the supply agreement dated 17.01.2008 N 07 sent a claim dated 19.01.2009 N 006 to the customer with a proposal in a order to repay the debt in the amount of 3,003,890 rubles 60 kopecks and pay interest under Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in the amount of 96,289 rubles 10 kopecks.

In connection with the failure of the Perm Locomotive Locomotive Repair Plant "Remputmash" company to comply with the requirements set forth in the claim, the company "Permzheltrans-service" filed this claim with the arbitration court.

The Court of Appeal recognized the satisfaction of the claims of the company "Permzheltrans-service" as lawful, but at the same time pointed out that in this case there was a one-time delivery of goods, since the disputed consignment note does not contain a reference to the supply contract dated 17.01.2008 N 07.

The conclusion of the Court of Appeal is correct and is confirmed by the materials of the case ... "

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated 03.03.2009 N F09-866 / 09-C5 in case N A60-14932 / 2008-C9

"... In resolving the dispute, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the case materials did not contain specifications for the contract dated 01.24.2008 N 3-642 / 08, the mentioned waybill references to the contract do not contain, therefore, the transfer of goods under them should be considered as one-time purchase and sale transactions ...

The terms of the agreement dated 24.01.2008 N 3-642/08 are not subject to application to the legal relations of the parties for the supply of goods according to invoices dated 28.12.2007 N 92 and dated 26.02.2008 N 1288, since the transfer of goods on them is qualified by the court as one-time purchase and sale transactions . Accordingly, the relations of the parties are regulated by Ch. 30 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which does not exclude the possibility of paying for the goods after they have been transferred to the buyer..."

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District dated January 15, 2009 N F09-10351 / 08-C5 in case N A71-3636 / 2008

"... As established by the court, the Tsentrmetall-Orenburg company (supplier) and the Bashavtotrans enterprise (buyer) signed an agreement for the supply of products dated 01.06.2007 N 093/1, under the terms of which the supplier undertakes to to deliver, and the buyer - to accept and pay for the products in the manner and terms stipulated by the terms of the contract.The range, quantity and price of products are agreed by the parties through negotiations and are indicated in the invoices, which are an integral part of the contract (clause 1.3 of this contract).

The terms of the contract for the sale of goods are considered agreed if the contract allows you to determine the name and quantity of the goods (clause 3, article 455 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

The court established that in the invoices submitted by the company "Tsentrmetall-Orenburg" in support of the claims there is no reference to the contract dated 01.06.2007 N 093/1. No other evidence confirming the fact that the parties agreed on the name and quantity of the goods that are the subject of delivery under this agreement was presented by the plaintiff (Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Therefore, as correctly stated by the court of appeal, relations arose between the parties for the supply of goods under one-time transactions (Article 506 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) ... "

Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District dated June 26, 2006 N F09-5306 / 06-C5 in case N A71-480 / 05

"... Having established that the fact of delivery of goods under single transactions is confirmed by waybills, in which there are marks (signature and seal of the defendant) on receipt of the goods, the calculation of the debt was performed by the plaintiff correctly, evidence of full payment for the goods received from the plaintiff by the defendant was not presented, the courts reasonably , in accordance with Article 309, 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, satisfied the claims.

The arguments of the applicant of the cassation appeal that the goods were supplied under the supply contract dated November 1, 2004, and not under one-time purchase and sale transactions, are rejected, since there are no references to the said contract in the invoices.

The court of cassation believes that the arbitration court resolved the dispute in accordance with the current legislation, the factual circumstances of the case were established on the basis of a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the evidence presented, the court's conclusions correspond to these circumstances. Violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law, which, by virtue of Art. 288 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation may be the basis for the cancellation of judicial acts, it has not been established ... "

Article 454 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Contract of sale

1. Under a contract of sale, one party (seller) undertakes to transfer a thing (goods) into the ownership of the other party (buyer), and the buyer undertakes to accept this goods and pay a certain amount of money (price) for it.
2. The provisions provided for by this paragraph shall apply to the sale and purchase of securities and currency valuables, unless special rules for their sale and purchase are established by law.
3. In the cases provided for by this Code or another law, the specifics of the purchase and sale of certain types of goods are determined by laws and other legal acts.
4. The provisions provided for by this paragraph shall apply to the sale of property rights, unless otherwise follows from the content or nature of these rights.
5. To certain types of sales contract ( retail sale, supply of goods, supply of goods for state needs, contracting, energy supply, sale of real estate, sale of an enterprise) the provisions provided for by this paragraph shall apply, unless otherwise provided by the rules of this Code on these types of contracts.

Compulsion to conclude a contract of sale non-residential premises

ARBITRATION COURT OF MOSCOW

In the name of the Russian Federation

(extract)

The operative part of the decision was announced on 22.01.2007.
Full text solution was made on 29.01.2007.
The Arbitration Court, composed of the presiding judge N., the record was kept by the assistant judge P.GN, with the participation of: from the plaintiff - B. (dov. from 17.01.2007 b / n), from the defendant - P.Yu.V. (adv. dated 09.01.2007 N 07 / 05-7), from a third party - A. (adv. dated 11.11. property of the city of Moscow, 3rd person - DIGM, on compulsion to conclude a contract of sale,

SET UP:

Luna LLC filed a lawsuit against the State Unitary Enterprise for the sale of Moscow property to compel the defendant to conclude a contract for the sale of non-residential premises with an area of ​​525.6 sq. m (floor 1, room II, rooms 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 3b, 4-9, 9a, 9b, 10 - 14, 14a, 15, 15a, 16, 16a, 17, 17a, 19 , 23, 23a, 24, 25), located at the address: Moscow, st. Perovskaya, 10, bldg. 1, at a price of 6628894 rubles. on the terms of the draft agreement attached to the claim, referring to the creation of a company in the process of privatization of the property of studio N 37 and the use real estate on lease.
The defendant rejected the claim, referring to the absence of a corresponding order of the DIGM, stated that the plaintiff did not apply for the purchase of real estate before the expiration of the period provided for in paragraph 13 of Art. 43 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-FZ “On the privatization of state and municipal property”, and on the impossibility of redeeming real estate after two years from the date of entry into force of this Law, and also challenged the redemption price of the property proposed by the plaintiff.
The 3rd person considers the claims unlawful, pointing out that the provisions of the lease agreements for real estate on the right to buy this property have become invalid since 04/27/2004, that the lease agreement N 4-108 / 95 dated 02/15/1995, concluded with the plaintiff, does not provide for the possibility of redemption leased property, stated that the market price of the immovable property in respect of which claims are made, at the present time is 34235593 RUB.
Disputing the arguments of the defendant and the 3rd party, the plaintiff referred to the established judicial practice in such disputes (decree of the FAS MO dated 04.10.2006 N KG-A40 / 9151-06).
Having considered the submitted documents and having heard the persons participating in the case, the court finds the requirements subject to satisfaction due to the following circumstances.
Luna LLC is the assignee of Luna Firm LLP, created in the process of privatization of studio No. 37 at the address: Moscow, st. Perovskaya, 10, building 1.
In accordance with the privatization plan approved by the decision of the Territorial Agency of the Higher Administrative District of the Moscow Property Committee of 10.04.1992 N 6, Luna LLP, under the contract of sale of 04.11.1992 N 04-00239 / 92, bought out the main and working capital studio.
The privatization plan and the agreement dated 04.11.1992 N 04-00239/92 provide for the transfer of the studio premises to the partnership for rent with the right to buy them out in one year.
Rental use of the studio premises with an area of ​​527.9 sq. m is formalized by agreement dated February 15, 1995 N 4-108 / 95 between the Moscow Property Committee and the partnership.
As a result of the redevelopment of the premises, permitted by the order of the head of the council of the Perovo district of the city of Moscow dated March 25, 2004 N 109, the area of ​​the leased premises has changed and amounted to 525.6 square meters. m.
The lease agreement dated 15.02.1995 N 4-108/95 was concluded, as it is expressly stated in its text, on the basis of the sale and purchase agreement dated 04.11.1992 N 04-00239/92, therefore, the absence of a clause on the right of the tenant to redeem the occupied premises does not mean that the plaintiff is not subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of Art. 43 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-FZ "On the privatization of state and municipal property".
In accordance with paragraph 13 of Art. 43 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-FZ "On the privatization of state and municipal property" if all property of state or municipal enterprise, with the exception of the building or non-residential premises in which this enterprise was located, was acquired before the entry into force of Chapter IV of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation with the simultaneous conclusion of a lease agreement providing for the possibility of buying out such a building or premises, the specified building or non-residential premises is subject to sale to the owner who has acquired all the property of the enterprise at market value.
With an application for the sale of the leased premises, the plaintiff applied to the Department of Property of the City of Moscow, authorized to make decisions on the sale of property of the City of Moscow, on 04/06/2004 (entry No. 70-124 / 04) - before the expiration of the established two-year period for exercising the right to buy out the premises.
The market value of the premises rented by the plaintiff during this period was 6,628,894 rubles, which is confirmed by the appraisal report N 04-0117-0044 / 04-1, compiled by PBOYuL Z. on the instructions of the DIGM.
The plaintiff cannot bear negative consequences due to the rise in the price of real estate during the period when the DIGM avoids making a decision to sell the property, therefore, the redemption price of the property should be determined based on its market price at the time the plaintiff applied for a buyout.
The objections of the defendant and the 3rd person are given without taking into account the established judicial practice (Decree of the FAS MO dated 04.10.2006 N KG-A40 / 9151-06), and therefore are subject to rejection.
The costs of the state duty must be attributed to the defendant, however, he is exempted from paying it, therefore, the state duty paid when filing a claim is refundable.
Guided by Art. 43 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2001 N 178-FZ "On the privatization of state and municipal property", art. Art. 8, 12, 195, 196, 199, 200, 217, 432, 445 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. Art. 65, 104, 105, 110, 167, 170, 173, 176, 180, 181 APC RF, court

to oblige the State Unitary Enterprise for the sale of Moscow property to conclude an agreement for the sale and purchase of non-residential premises with an area of ​​525.6 sq. m. with Luna LLC. m (floor 1, room II, rooms 1, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 3b, 4 - 9, 9a, 9b, 10 - 14, 14a, 15, 15a, 16, 16a, 17, 17a, 19 , 23, 23a, 24, 25), located at the address: Moscow, st. Perovskaya, 10, bldg. 1, at a price of 6628894 rubles.
Return LLC "Luna" from the federal budget 2000 (two thousand) rubles. state duty.
The decision can be appealed within one month to the arbitration court of appeal.

Recovery of the amount of debt and interest for the use of other people's funds under a suretyship agreement concluded for the purpose of executing a contract for the sale of real estate

ARBITRATION COURT OF MOSCOW

In the name of the Russian Federation

The operative part was announced on October 08, 2007.
The date of manufacture of the decision in full is October 12, 2007.
Arbitration Court of Moscow consisting of:
Presiding: A.
members of the court: alone
during the record keeping by Judge A.
with the participation of representatives:
from the plaintiff: B. - pass.
from the defendants: P. - beats. 8926, dov. from 22.03.2007 dov. dated 03/22/2007, G. - passport, dov. dated 06/19/2007, dov. dated 06/19/2007, dov. dated May 25, 2007
considered the case on the claim of RAMENKA LLC
to American Traders LLC; OOO Seventh Point; OOO Magazin N 40 "Sollolaki"
for the recovery jointly and severally 52 171 895 RUB. 01 kop.
The court clarified the procedural rights and obligations, as well as the right to challenge, the right to consider the case with the participation of arbitration assessors, to refer the dispute to arbitration, the right to apply to a mediator to resolve the dispute, to conclude an amicable agreement.
AT court session a break was announced from 03.10.2007 to 08.10.2007

installed:

claim filed for recovery from the defendants jointly and severally 52 171 895 RUB. 01 kopecks, amounting to 49,181,415 rubles. 69 kop. debt and 2,990,479 rubles. 32 kop. interest for the use of other people's funds until March 27, 2007, due to non-fulfillment of agreement No. 1 / 2006-3 of June 30, 2006.
The case is being considered after the abolition of the FAS MO.
By decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dated March 30, 2007, 52,171,895 rubles were recovered from the defendants in solidarity. 01 kop., including: 49,181,415 rubles. 69 kop. debt and 2,990,479 rubles. 32 kop. percent, as well as 100,000 rubles. state duty expenses.
By the decision of the FAS MO of 06.07.2007 N KG-A40 / 6200-07, the court decision in case N A40-59341 / 06-89-469 of 30.03.2007 was canceled and the case was submitted for a new trial. This decision states that the court did not examine clause 3.2, according to which the guarantor is not liable to the creditor for the fulfillment of the debtor's obligation secured by this agreement, if, through the fault of the creditor, a contract for the sale of the property is not concluded between the creditor and the guarantor. In view of the foregoing, the court of first instance must take into account the above and adopt a lawful and justified judicial act in the case.
The plaintiff supported the claims. The defendant objected to the satisfaction of the claim, on the grounds set forth in the response.
Fulfilling the instructions of the FAS MO, having considered the materials of the case, having listened to the arguments of the representative of the plaintiff, having evaluated the evidence presented, considers that the claims are subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.
As seen from the case file, between the plaintiff, the defendant American Traders LLC and Seventh Continent LLC, agreement No. 1/2006-3 dated 06/30/2006 (case file 39-40) was concluded.
By clause 5 of agreement 1/2006-3 dated June 30, 2006, the former owner (defendant American Traders LLC) undertook to return to the tenant (the plaintiff in this dispute) the amount of outstanding advances.
Clause 2 of Agreement No. 1/2006-3 dated 30.06.06 established that the amounts of advance payments not offset as rent under lease agreements No. 02/2002 dated 28.01.2002; N 01/2002 dated January 28, 2002; N 01/2004/E dated September 30, 2004, are indicated in the reconciliation report N 1/AT dated June 30, 2006, signed between the defendant American Traders LLC and the claimant Ramenka LLC.
From paragraph 1.3. reconciliation act N 1 / AT dated June 30, 2006, it is seen that the total amount of uncredited advances is 49,181,415 rubles. 69 kopecks, including: 22,940,486.11 rubles. uncredited advance under lease agreement N 02/2002 dated 01/28/2002, 24,516,252 rubles. 74 kop. uncredited advance under lease agreement N 01/2002 dated January 28, 2002 and 1,724,676 rubles. 82 kopecks, uncredited advance under the lease agreement N 01/2004 / E dated September 30, 2004.
In order to ensure the fulfillment by the defendant - American Traders LLC of obligations under agreement 1/2006-3 dated 06/30/2006, surety agreements were concluded.
Guarantee agreement N 1/2006-P dated 06/30/2006 concluded between the plaintiff - RAMENKA LLC and the defendant Seventh Point LLC and guarantee agreement N 1-1/2006-P dated 06/30/2006 concluded between the plaintiff - LLC "RAMENKA" and the defendant LLC Magazin N 40 "Sollolaki".
In accordance with the terms of the said surety agreements, the guarantors (defendants in this dispute) - Magazin N 40 Sollolaki LLC and Seventh Point LLC, undertook to be liable to the creditor (plaintiff) for the fulfillment by the defendant - American Traders LLC of monetary obligations arising from agreement dated June 30, 2006 N 1/2006-3 in the same scope as the debtor (defendant) American Traders LLC, but not limited to the payment of interest, reimbursement of legal costs for the collection of debt and other losses of creditors in full caused by non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations by the debtor and transfer the amount of the debt within 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of the creditor's demand (clauses 1.2 and 2.1 of surety agreements).
In accordance with Art. 363 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in case of non-performance or improper performance by the debtor of the obligation secured by the guarantee, the guarantor and the debtor shall be jointly and severally liable to the creditor. The guarantor is liable to the creditor to the same extent as the debtor, including the payment of interest caused by non-performance or improper performance of the obligation by the debtor, unless otherwise provided by the surety agreement.
According to clause 1.3. surety agreements, the liability of the guarantors to the creditor is joint and several.
As seen from the case file, the plaintiff sent telegrams to the defendants demanding payment of Money in total amount RUB 49,181,415 69 kopecks, which were received by the defendants on 08.08.2006, which is confirmed by notifications of delivery of the telegram. In addition, the plaintiff sent the defendants registered letters with similar requirements.
The defendants did not respond to the plaintiff's demands, the debt was not repaid.
The court considers the plaintiff's arguments reasonable and proven, while according to Article. Art. 309, 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be properly performed in accordance with the terms of the obligation, a unilateral refusal to fulfill the obligation is not allowed.
The court cannot accept the arguments of the defendants that the obligations of the guarantors have ceased, since it was precisely through the fault of the plaintiff that the contracts for the sale of real estate objects were not concluded: under the contracts of guarantee dated June 30, 2006 N 1 / 2006-P at the address: Moscow, Zelenograd , Savelkinsky proezd, 8 and dated June 30, 2006, 1-1 / 2006-P at the address: Moscow, Leningradsky pr-t, 78, bldg. 1. In addition, the defendants also refer to the fact that the surety agreements are concluded under a resolutive condition, which is provided for in paragraph 3.2. agreements, from which it follows, as already indicated above, that the guarantor is not liable to the creditor for the fulfillment of the obligation of the debtor secured by this agreement (American Traders LLC), in the event that, through the fault of the creditor, purchase and sale agreements are not concluded between the creditor and the guarantors real estate objects.
The court cannot agree with the defendant's arguments that these agreements were concluded under a resolutive condition.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 157 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to which the defendants refer, according to which - a transaction is considered to be completed under a resolutive condition if the parties have made the termination of rights and obligations dependent on a circumstance regarding which it is not known whether it will occur or not. Thus, this rule says that the condition must be a circumstance depending on the will of the parties, that is, the parties cannot know whether this circumstance will occur or not. In addition, the conclusion of an agreement is primarily the will of the parties expressed in writing, thus the conclusion of sales contracts by the parties under surety agreements depends only on the will of the parties, based on the foregoing, the defendants' reference to clause 3.2. surety agreements is invalid.
At the same time, the condition of clause 3.2. of the contract in terms of its execution by the parties, the court considers that the fulfillment by guarantors of obligations under suretyship agreements is made dependent not on the circumstances of the failure to conclude a sale and purchase agreement, but on the fault of the creditor in their failure to conclude. According to the meaning and content of Art. 401 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - fault (intent or negligence) is an element of liability and cannot be related to circumstances with the onset of which the parties can establish the occurrence of any obligations. By virtue of paragraph 2 of Art. 157 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - the fault of the creditor cannot be a circumstance about which the parties do not know and cannot know whether it will come or not.
In accordance with paragraph 1. Art. 549 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - under a contract for the sale of real estate (a contract for the sale of property), the seller undertakes to transfer a land plot, building, structure, apartment or other real property into the ownership of the buyer.
In accordance with Art. 131 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the right of ownership and other real rights to immovable things, restrictions on these rights, their emergence, transfer and termination are subject to state registration in the Unified State Register of rights to real estate and transactions with it, the following are subject to registration: the right of ownership, the right of economic management, the right operational management, the right of lifetime inheritable possession, the right of permanent use, mortgage, easements, as well as other rights in cases provided for by this Code and other laws.
After examining the documents submitted by the parties, the court did not establish the creditor's guilt before the guarantors in the failure to conclude sales contracts.
In accordance with Art. 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation - each person participating in the case must prove the circumstances to which he refers as the basis for his claims and objections.
The defendants, in turn, did not provide evidence that the plaintiff did not intend to conclude sales contracts, on the contrary, the correspondence of the parties is presented in the case file, from which it is seen that Ramenka LLC intends to conclude sales contracts and also offered to hold a meeting in in order to agree on a payment schedule
In connection with the foregoing, the court considers lawful, justified and subject to satisfaction the plaintiff's claim for the recovery jointly and severally 49 181 415 RUB. 69 kopecks, since the plaintiff's fault in the failure to conclude contracts has not been established, and the refusal to fulfill obligations is contrary to Art. Art. 309, 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in this case, from the fulfillment by the defendants of obligations under surety agreements in terms of paying the debt.
In connection with the non-payment of the debt, the plaintiff declares a claim for the recovery of interest for the use of someone else's money in accordance with Art. 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in the amount of 2,990,479 rubles. 32 kop. until 27.03.2007 at the rate of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 10.5% per annum and asks to recover the specified amount from the defendants jointly and severally referring to paragraph 1.2. surety agreements.
The court considers justified the plaintiff's claim to recover from the defendants jointly and severally interest for the use of other people's money in the stated amount of 2 990 479 RUB. 32 kopecks, since there was a failure to fulfill a monetary obligation by the defendants.
In accordance with Art. 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the costs of the state duty incurred by the plaintiff are subject to recovery from the defendants in full, since the requirements stated in the claim are justified.
Court, guided by Article. Art. 8, 12, 131, 157, 307, 309, 310, 363, 395, 429, 549 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Art. Art. 4, 65, 75, 49, 110, 121, 123, 156, 170 - 175 APC RF,

In the Review of Judicial Practice No. 5, approved in December 2017, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) summarized the practice in controversial cases in various legal areas. Thus, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered the procedure for resolving disputes about the fulfillment of obligations. In paragraph 8 of the review, the Supreme Court clarifies that non-payment for goods by the buyer in the event that the seller fulfills obligations in good faith is recognized as a material violation of the terms of sale.

As an example, the review cites the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (N 5-KG17-13) at the suit of a woman who sold her land and house, but did not receive the payment stipulated by the agreement from the buyer.

History of the proceedings

The woman went to court with a statement of claim, in which she asked for the termination of the contract of sale concluded with the defendant and the return of the real estate transferred to him under the contract.

The plaintiff entered into a contract of sale with the buyer, according to which the latter was to receive a residential building and a plot of land and transfer to the woman the amount of money specified in the contract. The plaintiff fulfilled her part of the obligations in full. The transfer of ownership to the buyer was properly registered, however, the buyer did not repay the real estate, which, according to the plaintiff, significantly violated the terms of the concluded agreement.

At the first consideration of the case, the court satisfied the demands of the woman. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that as a result of the defendant's long-term failure to fulfill the obligation to pay for the acquired property, the plaintiff largely lost what she expected when concluding the contract. The court considered such a violation significant, and recognized the woman's right to demand termination of the contract and the return of the property transferred to the buyer.

The next instance expressed a different opinion. The appeal made a new decision, the woman's demands were left unsatisfied. The court did not dispute the fact that the buyer failed to fulfill its obligation to pay for the property, but considered that this breach of contract was not material.

In making its decision, the court referred to Art. 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and indicated: the fact that the goods were not paid for by the buyer does not entail the plaintiff's right to terminate the contract, but only gives rise to the right to demand payment for the house and land and the collection of interest in in due course. Also, refusing the plaintiff, the court applied the explanations contained in paragraph 65 of the Resolution of the Plenums of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of April 2010 N 10/22 (hereinafter referred to as Resolution No. 10/22), In paragraph 65 of Resolution No. 10/22 it is said that by virtue of Art. 453 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the parties to the proceedings cannot demand the return of what they performed under the obligation until the moment the contract was changed or terminated, unless other rules are determined by law or agreement.

Conclusions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that the conclusion of the appellate instance contradicts the norms of the law, namely the rules of Art. 450 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This article stipulates that such a breach of contract is recognized as significant, due to which the other party receives damage, due to which it is largely deprived of what it could count on when concluding the agreement. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explained: in assessing the materiality of the violation committed by the buyer, the court had to proceed from the fact that the plaintiff did not receive any payment for the land and building, and therefore obviously lost what she expected to receive when concluding the contract.

Regarding the conclusion of the appeal that the fact of non-payment of land and house gives the plaintiff only the right to insist on paying for real estate and collecting interest, the Supreme Court indicated that such a conclusion is erroneous and follows from a misinterpretation of Art. 486 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. It does not follow from the meaning of this article that if the buyer refuses to pay for the goods, the seller does not have the right to demand termination of the contract on the grounds provided for in Art. 450 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also pointed out the incorrect application by the appeal of the clarification of Resolution No. 10/22. In accordance with Art. 1103 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules on unjust enrichment are applicable to the claims of one party in an obligation to the other party for the return of what was performed in connection with this obligation. Accordingly, upon termination of the agreement, the seller has the right to insist on the return of the goods transferred to the buyer if this goods is not paid for.

Thus, the Supreme Court clarified that the seller has the right to terminate the contract if the buyer refused to pay for the goods. The court determined that non-payment for the goods received is a material breach of the sales contract, on this basis the seller has the right to demand termination of the contract in court. At the same time, this circumstance does not exclude the possibility for the seller to demand protection of rights in a different manner, by collecting the amount of the debt under the contract and the interest accrued on the amount of the debt.

Noteworthy is the fact that earlier the RF Armed Forces had a different position on the issue under consideration. For example, in a similar dispute on non-payment of the purchase price for an apartment, considered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in 2011 (determination No. 5-B11-27), the Supreme Court determined that non-payment of goods does not apply to material violations of the terms of the sales contract.

It is assumed that the latest clarifications of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will be actively applied by the courts and will serve additional tool protection of the rights of the seller, who fulfilled his obligations in good faith, in the event that these rights are violated by non-payment for the goods.

Lead Counsel

Legal Service Center LLC

Brazhnikov Vladimir Sergeevich

Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated July 11, 2011 No. 54 "On certain issues of resolving disputes arising from contracts regarding real estate that will be created or acquired in the future" was adopted

1. The future object of real estate, acting as the subject of a contract of sale

Key clarification: the subject of a contract for the sale of a future real estate object can be properly individualized even before it is created, registered and has not received a cadastral number.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 54, the absence in the contract of sale of real estate that will be created or acquired in the future, an indication of its cadastral number is not confirmation of the fact that the parties have not agreed on the disposal of the subject of the contract.

Arbitrage practice under a contract of sale real estate was secured by clarifications given by the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. He pointed out that the subject of the contract for the sale of the future real estate object can be individualized in other ways that allow you to establish the property transferred under the contract to the buyer. For example, this may be the approximate area of ​​​​the future construction, the location of the object being built, the properties of real estate defined in project documentation. In addition, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation clarified the fact that this agreement cannot be recognized as not concluded even if it does not contain enough data to individualize the subject of the agreement, but at the same time they are, for example, in the act of acceptance and transfer of real estate under the agreement .

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Decree No. 54, the territorial bodies of Rosreestr do not have the right in this situation to express a refusal to conduct state registration of a person's rights to real estate and transactions with it. Thus, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation gave an extended explanation to Article 554 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which does not contain a specific list of methods for individualizing real estate objects for their sale. At the same time, he did not indicate the mandatory registration of real estate in the USRR at the time of the conclusion of the contract. But, at the same time, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation separately highlights that such contracts provide for the price of the property being sold, the establishment of which can be carried out per unit area or in another way (according to paragraph 3 of Article 555 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Otherwise, the agreements will be considered non-concluded (according to paragraph 1 of Article 550 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Paragraph 3 of Decree No. 54 states that uncertainty on the subject of a contract for the sale of a future real estate object can be considered a reason to recognize the agreement as not concluded. But at the same time, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation cites several guidelines through which it becomes possible to establish the real will of both parties. This can be done, focusing on the provision of the contract and other evidence in the case from the practice of relations between the parties and the customs of business.

It has been established that if there is no evidence of reaching an agreement between the parties when discussing the subject of the contract, the contract of sale is considered not concluded.

If the parties have evidence that confirms the fact that the agreement on the sale of the future real estate object was concluded under the influence of a delusion about the individualization of its subject, the deluded party may demand compensation for damage as a result of recognizing the agreement as not concluded. To do this, it is necessary to prove the presence of guilt in the actions of the seller selling the real estate object.

2. Execution of the contract of sale future real estate

Key clarification: if the seller under the contract at the time of execution of the agreement does not own or does not act as the owner of such an object, he cannot be forced to fulfill the obligation, as well as to state registration of the transfer of ownership to the seller himself.

The Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation pointed out two possible situations that may entail a forced execution of the contract of sale future real estate. In the event that the seller under the contract is not the owner or owner of this thing, he cannot be forced to take actions to create or acquire it. In accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 487 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the plaintiff may demand the return of the amount of money paid and the payment of interest on it. He can also make a claim for compensation for the damages that have been caused to him. This type of compensation provides for, for example, the payment of the difference between the value of real estate provided for in the sale and purchase agreement and the current market price of such an object.

If the court receives exhaustive evidence of the fact that the defendant is the owner of real estate, which acts as the subject of the contract and is its unregistered owner, the arbitration court may oblige the defendant to fulfill its obligations under the contract (according to Article 398 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). defendant can be expressed in the transfer of real estate and state registration of the transfer of ownership of it under the contract of sale.

In addition, the plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation specifically noted that the requirements for recognizing the right of ownership of real estate and reclaiming it from the defendant can be defined as requirements that compel the fulfillment of the obligation to transfer a certain thing and state registration of the transfer of ownership of it.

3. Construction of a real estate object at the customer's site

Key clarification: The status of a construction contract may be agreements that consider the creation of a future real estate object on a piece of land owned by another person under the contract.

Paragraph 6 of Decree No. 54 clarifies that an agreement that provides for the creation of an immovable object on a plot of land owned by the other party under this agreement, then such relations must be defined as relations of a construction contract. In this situation, the party that carries out the construction has the right to receive payment for the work performed in accordance with the contract. When this condition is not met, in addition to the specified amount of money, the party may demand compensation for damages with the payment of a penalty stipulated by the terms of the contract. She can also exercise her right, which is granted to her under the rules of Article 712 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

In case the payment construction works under the contract is made in cash, and with the provision of ownership of the premises in the erected building, then this contract can be qualified as a mixed one, and strictly defined requirements that are provided for by the contract of sale of real estate will be met in the relevant part of it.

4. Definition of an agreement on a future real estate object as a simple partnership agreement

Key clarification: a simple partnership agreement can be considered an agreement on the future real estate object, providing that each party makes its contribution to the achievement of a common goal.

A simple partnership agreement is an agreement regarding future real estate. Paragraph 7 of Decree No. 54 clarifies that partnership agreement provides for an equal contribution of each participant in the transaction to the future object. For example, one participant transfers money, the second one performs the work, the third one delivers Construction Materials etc. The result of cooperation under a simple partnership agreement is a finished property.

At the direction of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, if, contrary to the main terms of the contract, one of the partners who must contribute to the creation of the property in the form of a transfer land plot into common ownership or lease rights, evades the fulfillment of its obligations, in this case, the other participants may demand the fulfillment of such obligations in court. This fact is enshrined in paragraph 3 of Article 551 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Claims comrades who express the requirement to recognize the ownership of a share in a real estate object created by common forces, in accordance with the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, given in paragraph 7 of Resolution No. 54, should be qualified in the same way.

In all of the above cases, it must be taken into account that the ownership right of each partner who makes the above requirement can arise only after the state registration of such a right on the basis of a judicial act, which indicates the fact that this requirement has been satisfied.

5. An investment agreement cannot be qualified as an independent type of civil law contracts

Key clarification: an investment contract cannot be considered independent view contracts. That is why, in each case, it is necessary to determine the legal nature of such an agreement.

Paragraph 4 of Decree No. 54 clarifies the fact that contracts that are related to investment activities cannot have a special legal regulation obligations that develop between the parties.

The Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation noted that in this case, arbitration courts must first establish the legal nature of such contracts (contract, sale, simple partnership). In addition, he drew attention to the fact that the right of ownership to a real estate object, which is created in accordance with the provisions of the "investment agreement", may arise from the persons who have concluded this agreement, from the moment when the state registration of the right is carried out. This fact is enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 223 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

6. Conclusion of a preliminary contract for the sale of real estate

Key clarification: a preliminary contract for the sale of real estate, which was concluded on the terms of advance payment, can be considered a contract for the sale of a future real estate object.

The Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 7 of Resolution No. 54 explained that preliminary contract for the sale of real estate between persons who undertake to conclude a contract for the sale of property created in the future, on the terms of prepayment of the majority of the total value or the full price of the object, should be defined as a contract for the sale of future real estate.

The Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the requirement for individualization of the object of the sale and purchase agreement also applies to the subject of the future agreement, which is indicated in the preliminary agreement. That is why this preliminary agreement cannot be considered non-concluded if the individualization of the object was properly carried out in the preliminary agreement, but, for example, without indicating the cadastral number of the property.

7. The procedure for registering a contract for the sale of residential premises

Key clarification: the procedure for state registration of contracts for the sale of residential premises is necessary only if at the time of the conclusion of this contract the seller is the owner of the specified object.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 9 of Resolution No. 54, the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation explained that state registration should be carried out in relation to the contract for the sale of residential premises if, by the time it is concluded, the subject of the agreement is owned by the seller (according to paragraph 2 of Article 558 Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Otherwise, it will be considered that from the moment of its signing the contract is not concluded.

It is also established that the expression of a refusal by the territorial bodies of Rosreestr regarding the state registration of ownership of a residential type premises that does not belong to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the sale and purchase agreement and is not properly registered can be considered illegal if the refusal is due solely to the absence this registration.

8. Conclusion of a shared construction agreement.

Key clarification: the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, which follow from Decree No. 54, do not apply to those relations that are associated with shared construction apartment buildings.

This statement applies to objects regulated federal law dated December 30, 2004 No. 214-FZ “On participation in shared construction of apartment buildings and other real estate objects and on amendments to some legislative acts of the Russian Federation”.