T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
MAINLY NO: 2016/3357
DECISION NO: 2016/13899
DATE OF DECISION: 24.10.2016
FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRACKING, A CASE OF FALSE IDENTIFICATION BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE BILL IS A GUARANTEE BILL, THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE STATE OF EVIDENCE
6100/m.222/5
6102/m.64
SUMMARY : The case is related to the foul determination request.
The plaintiff has requested a negative determination by claiming that the deed in question was issued for collateral due to the tracking related to the foreign exchange bill initiated against him. The plaintiff must prove these claims with a written document. Since the petition of claim is not based solely on the defendant’s books as evidence, the defendant’s failure to present his book does not constitute a presumption that the case has been proven by being interpreted in favor of the plaintiff. The court’s decision to “accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff has proved his claim because the defendant has refrained from submitting his books” required a reversal, while the plaintiff’s evidence based on the written document should be evaluated and evaluated according to the result.
CASE: At the end of the trial of the decriminalization case between the parties, the file was examined by the plaintiff’s attorney within the period of the decision to dismiss the case for reasons written in the decision, the file was reviewed, discussed and considered as necessary:
decision
The plaintiff’s attorney made of enforcement proceedings against his client, which is the subject of the chase 30.000 TL worth of equity, that was given to the collateral, and “collateral” for the part cut with scissors if it was a later addition to the maturity date, and again, that he owes his client filed in criminal court by asserting that continues to demand that it be given has to decide if and prosecuted.
The defendant’s deputy asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff must prove with written evidence that he is not in debt based on the year containing the debt offer.
According to the Court, 222/5 of HMK No. 6100.in accordance with article 64 of the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102, since the defendant is a merchant, the commercial books are not submitted despite the exact time given to the respondent party to submit their commercial books.according to the article, the acceptance of the case was decided on the grounds that the plaintiff had proved his claim because he had to clearly reveal the debt and receivable relations in his books, the defendant had avoided submitting his books, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
The plaintiff has requested a negative determination by claiming that the deed in question was issued for collateral due to the tracking related to the foreign exchange bill initiated against him. The plaintiff must prove these claims with a written document. Since the petition of claim is not based solely on the defendant’s books as evidence, the defendant’s failure to present his book does not constitute a presumption that the case has been proven by being interpreted in favor of the plaintiff. According to the principle described above, the court required the plaintiff to evaluate the evidence based on the written document and evaluate it according to the result, while the decision to be made in writing required overturning.
CONCLUSION : For the reasons described above, it was decided unanimously on 24.10.2016 that the provision would be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the defendant and that the advance fee would be refunded if requested.
