Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 3709/1996 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses debt arrangement request where car loan was deemed reckless spending without special justification.

Case Number KKO 3709/1996
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request for a debt arrangement, ruling that the 45,000 mark car loan constituted reckless debt accumulation. The applicant argued the vehicle was necessary for their electrician job and commuting, yet the court found no special circumstances justifying the debt. Consequently, the loan was classified as an obstacle to debt arrangement under the relevant statute.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

VJL 10 § 7 kohta; A debt arrangement request is denied when a loan is deemed reckless spending absent special circumstances justifying the debt.

Keywords

AI generated
debt arrangement reckless spending special circumstances automobile loan employment necessity VJL 10 Supreme Court

Cited Legislation

AI generated
VJL 10 § 7 kohta
AI generated
kko-precedent_1994_141
Supreme Court allows creditor repossession of car bought by wife for husband's essential work commute.
insurance_2008_7005-2007
Student bus subsidy allowed when school commute becomes too difficult due to childcare obligations.
admin_1984_central-finland-county__1023
Court allows car repair costs as deductible income-related expenses for a forest ranger's necessary work travel.
kko-precedent_1997_9
Supreme Court dismisses claim against city for car theft, finding sufficient security measures were taken.
appeal_1984_eastern-finland__535
Court orders compensation for vehicle damage caused by a school's employee error without requiring the victim to schedule repairs.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Velallinen oli ammattikoululaisena ottanut 45 000 markan lainan käytetyn auton ostamista varten kulkeakseen autolla koulumatkoja toiseen kuntaan. Auto oli työnantajan todistuksen mukaan velalliselle tarpeellinen hänen nykyisessä sähköasentajan ammatissaan. Jo ennen auton ostoa velallinen oli yhdessä kahden muun henkilön kanssa velvoitettu yksipuolisella tuomiolla suorittamaan takausvastuita 200 000 markkaa korkoineen. Kysymys siitä, oliko auton ostoa velaksi pidettävä ilmeisesti kevytmielisenä velkaantumisena ja siten velkajärjestelyn esteenä ja oliko asiassa kuitenkin erityisiä vastasyitä, joiden johdosta velkajärjestely voitaisiin myöntää.

VJL 10 § 7 kohta