T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Law Office
Basis: 2016/577
Decision: 2016/3867
Decision Date: 14.07.2016
ACTION RESULTING FROM THE WORKS CONTRACT – DECISION TO COLLECT THE FEE FROM THE DEFENDANT AS A RESULT OF ACCOUNTING ERRORS – THE REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF THE DECISION IS SEEN AND ACCEPTABLE IN THIS DIRECTION AND CORRECTION OF MATERIAL DEFECT
SUMMARY: Since the local court decision was upheld, the appellant’s decision fee of 33,704.55 TL, after deducting the 11,359.15 TL cash appeal fee taken in advance, from the 45,063,70 TL approving and writ fee, including the Supreme Court application fee, which is required to be charged in accordance with the Fees Law, over the accepted part of the case, is to be charged to the appellant. As it was understood in the examination conducted that it was decided to collect the 56,422.85 TL fee from the defendant as a result of the calculation error, while a decision should have been made, the request for correction of the decision was accepted in this direction and it was deemed appropriate to correct the material error.
(6098 S. K. Art. 470)
Case and Decision: Plaintiff .. Mimarlık İnşaat Turizm San. ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. with the defendant .. Gıda Ürünleri San. ve Tic. Inc. The defendant’s attorney made a request for correction of the decision against the decision numbered .. day and .. of our Chamber, which approved the verdict .. day and .. given by the Commercial Court of First Instance due to the lawsuit between
The case is related to the cancellation of the objection to the execution request without judgment made for the collection of the remaining work receivable arising from the contract of work and the request for the continuation of the proceedings. Upon the appeal of the party’s attorneys of the decision of the court regarding the partial acceptance of the case, a request for correction of the decision was made in due time by the attorney of the defendant against the decision numbered .. day .. given by our Chamber.
1-According to the articles in the file and the compelling reasons stated in the court decision and adopted in the Supreme Court decision, the other decision correction requests of the defendant’s attorney, which are outside the scope of the paragraph below, were not found appropriate and had to be rejected.
2- Since the decision of the local court was approved, the appellant and verdict fee of 33,704.55 TL is charged to the appellant after deducting the 11,359.15 TL cash appeal fee from the 45,063,70 TL approving and writ fee, including the Supreme Court application fee, which is required to be charged in accordance with the Fees Law, over the accepted portion of the case. As it was understood in the examination conducted that it was decided to collect the 56,422.85 TL fee from the defendant as a result of the calculation error, while a decision should have been made, the request for correction of the decision was accepted in this direction and it was deemed appropriate to correct the material error.
Conclusion: For the reasons explained in paragraph 1 above, the defendant’s other requests for correction of decision were rejected, and our Chamber’s approval in accordance with paragraph 2 was accepted under the title of the defendant in the part following the signatures, 45,063,70 TL judgment fee + 11,359.15 TL advance fee = 56,422.85 TL balance fee. 45,063,70 TL adjudication fee – 11,359.15 TL advance fee = 33,704.55 TL balance fee should be written as a balance fee, and the number “56,422.85 TL” after the balance word in the sixth line of the decision section of our Office was removed from the text of the decision and replaced with “ On 14.07.2016, it was unanimously decided to write the number “33,704,55 TL” and to CORRECT the material error in the approval order of our Department in this way, to return the prepayment fee for the correction of the decision paid, upon request, to the defendant requesting correction of the decision. (¤¤)
