I will note that on May 4, 2017, the mortgage was actually registered in the land registry registers as it appears from the registration document that was attached as page 26 to the statement of defense. In addition, the defendant registered from the neighborhoods guaranteeing its rights under the loan agreement (the registration certificates were attached as Appendix 2 to the statement of defense).
- After the signing of the loan agreement, the parties signed appendices to the loan agreement as follows:
- Moving on to the signing of the loan agreement - Appendix 1 to the agreement was signed, in which the parties agreed to change the method of payments.
- On March 11, 2018, the parties signed Appendix 2 to the loan agreement, in which the loan amount was increased by ILS 150,000 so that the amount of the loan principal would be ILS 2,650,000 (see starting at page 85 of the statement of defense).
- On November 11, 2018, the parties signed Appendix 3 to the loan agreement, according to which the lender agreed to increase the loan amount by an additional ILS 500,000, so that the amount of the loan principal would be a total of ILS 3,150,000 (pages 76 onwards of the statement of claim).
- On January 13, 2019, the parties signed Appendix 4 to the loan agreement - according to which the lender agreed to increase the loan amount by ILS 1,020,000 so that the current loan principal amount would be ILS 4,170,000 (page 90 onwards of the statement of defense). I will note that as an additional loan to this loan agreement (as well as to the agreements that followed it), Savyoni Weizmann was added in a tax appeal (hereinafter: "Savyoni Company") - which is also a company in which Feldman is a shareholder.
- On April 29, 2019, Appendix 5 to the loan agreement was signed between the defendant as a lender and the borrowers - Feldman, the plaintiff, the Protected Builders Company and Savyoni. In this agreement, it was agreed to change the repayment date of the loan (pages 33 onwards of the statement of claim).
- In order not to extend the scope unnecessarily, I will note that in each of the appendices of the loan agreement there is a detail of the appendices that were signed prior to it. It should also be noted that in each of the appendices, the plaintiff was defined as one of the borrowers' individuals, when it was written under the names of the three borrowers (or four of them after the incorporation of Savyoni): "All together and separately and each separately under the following mutual guarantee: "The borrower" and on each of the pages of the appendices the plaintiff's signature appears above the inscription "Borrower 2".
It should also be noted that in each of the appendices there is a section that applies the provisions of the "Heter Transaction" in a wording similar to that which appears in section 9 above of the judgment, including by performing a handwritten deletion of the text as it appears. I will note that in Appendices IV and V, in addition to the deletion appearing in clause 9, the words were also deleted: "It is clarified for the purpose of this clause that this clause was added to the agreement at the request of the borrower for halachic reasons only and not for commercial reasons."