T.R. Supreme Court 12th Law Office Principle: 2010/ 33354 Decision: 2011 / 15606 Decision Date: 07.07.2014
Supreme Court Decision
COURT: Küçükçekmece 1st Civil Court of Execution
DATE: 24/06/2010
NUMBER: 2009/580-2010/737
Upon the request of the debtor for the examination of the court decision, whose date and number is written above, upon the request of the debtor, the file regarding this matter was read from the place and sent to the office, and the need was discussed and considered:
124/3 of the İİK. Pursuant to the article, it is written in the specification that those who will participate in the auction should deposit twenty percent of the appraised value of the immovable property or a letter of guarantee from a national bank. 124/4 of the same law. If the creditor who has a right on the real estate put up for sale, participates in the auction at the rate stated in the above paragraph, no additional shareholding and security is sought.
In the concrete case, the value of the real estate subject to sale is 180.000 YTL according to the expert report dated 15.08.2008. 36.000 YTL of the guarantee to be received for participation in the auction in the real estate auction announcement and specifications. has been determined. In this case, it is obligatory to deposit the specified security in order to participate in the tender. If the amount of the receivable of the file creditor is sufficient to meet the collateral, no additional collateral is required. If the amount of the receivable is not sufficient to meet the guarantee, then the missing part is completed and accepted to the tender.
In that case, the court should examine the complaint in this direction and determine whether the receivable of the file creditor at the date of the tender meets the amount of the guarantee, while a decision should be made according to the result that will occur, but it was not considered correct to reach a conclusion in writing with an incomplete examination.
CONCLUSION: The acceptance of the debtor’s appeals and the court decision for the reasons written above, İİK.366. and HUMK.428. It was decided unanimously on 07/07/2011, pursuant to the articles of
