The case concerned the recovery of previously paid money under a counter-guarantee that ensured the performance of construction works by a subcontractor.
The Bank argued that KIAP Principal unreasonably filed a claim under the bank guarantee as the subcontractor had performed his work and there was no basis for payment under the guarantee. Despite the complex system of payments with the subcontractor in several currencies and the fact that the subcontractor was in the process of bankruptcy, KIAP lawyers managed to prove that the cost of the work performed by the subcontractor was much less than the amount received under the contract. In addition, the Bank, making payments on counter-guarantee, had all the necessary information about the amount of work performed. As a result, the court concluded that the actions of the Principal were justified and the Bank's claim was denied in full.