Concept of Legal Benefit:
In Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011, legal interest was accepted as a condition of action. A person whose right has been violated can apply to the court as a plaintiff and request legal protection. However , in order for the plaintiff to claim legal protection , there must be a benefit worthy of protection . The fact that the plaintiff has the right to sue is not sufficient to request legal protection from the court. The person suing must also have a legal interest in filing a lawsuit. As a rule, it is assumed that there is legal interest in construction cases and performance cases. The plaintiff is not obliged to declare and prove that he has a legal interest in such cases . However , in case of doubt , whether there is a legal interest or not is the subject of examination . In the case of determination, meanwhile, in the case of negative clearance, the plaintiff must have a legal interest in opening the case. The plaintiff must declare, explain and, if necessary, prove that he has a legal interest in filing a negative clearance action1. If the plaintiff cannot prove that he has a legal interest in filing a negative declaratory action, the lawsuit should be rejected on the grounds that there is no legal benefit, which is the condition of the lawsuit.
II. Conditions of Proof in Negative Decision Case
If the plaintiff debtor claims that the debt subject to the lawsuit does not exist and asks the court to determine that such a claim does not exist , the defendant creditor is obliged to prove the existence of the claim . If the plaintiff debtor claims that the receivable is invalid due to one of the circumstances that crippled the will (error, fraud, reprimand), then he is obliged to prove his claim. If the debtor claims that the debt that he accepts has ended for a reason such as payment, then naturally the burden of proof will fall on him. It is seen that, as a rule, the burden of proving the existence of the legal relationship is on the defendant/creditor in the negative clearance case, and the creditor has to prove the existence of the legal relationship (debt). If the debtor has accepted the existence of a legal relationship, but has claimed that this legal relationship is different from the one seen in the deed, this time, the burden of proving that the legal relationship is the one he claims falls on the plaintiff debtor. Because the plaintiff debtor, while accepting the existence of the deed, argues that it is not based on a legal relationship, but on another legal relationship; basically accepts the existence of a legal relationship.
“Supreme Court 20. HD. , 2019/2494 E. , 2019/3652 K. , T. 27.05.2019 ;”
“The case should be evaluated considering that the burden of proof is on the defendant, except for exceptional cases such as a negative declaratory action filed pursuant to Article 72 of the EBL, and in a negative declaratory case, such as being dependent on a bill of exchange. If the debtor denies the existence of the debt, in these cases the burden of proof falls on the creditor, even though he is the defendant. If the debtor claims that the debt, which he accepts to exist, has fallen for a reason such as payment, then naturally the burden of proof will fall on him.
It is seen that, as a rule, the burden of proving the existence of the legal relationship is on the defendant/creditor, and the creditor has to prove the existence of the legal relationship (debt). For these reasons, the court; Considering that the plaintiff has objection to the defendant/creditor’s authority to prosecute and to the essence of the debt, first of all, the defendant has the authority to prosecute and that the debt subject to the enforcement proceedings has to be proven with the evidence to be presented. It was not considered correct to dismiss the case in this way.
As a result, in accordance with article 72 of the EBL, the burden of proof in a negative clearance case is on the defendant as a rule, and he has to prove the existence of the debt. However, if the debt has become invalid due to special reasons, that is, due to the circumstances that crippled the will, the burden of proof has been changed and the plaintiff debtor has to prove the existence of this situation.
Malen Registration in the Bill of Exchange – Negative Decision Case – Burden of Proof
The aforementioned record in the bill of exchange states that the bill is issued against a delivered good. In other words ; The drawer (the person who issued the bond) says that I have received the goods and I am fulfilling my debt to pay the price for the goods with this bond.
Supreme Court
General Assembly of Law
Base No: 2013/2402
“Justice Text”
At the end of the trial due to the “negative determination” case between the parties; E:2010/1442, dated 01.02.2012 given by the Denizli 3rd Civil Court of Peace regarding the acceptance of the case,
Upon the request of the representatives of the parties to examine the decision numbered K:2012/92, with the decision dated 29.01.2013 and numbered E:2012/14275, K:2013/1601 of the 19th Law Department of the Court of Cassation;
(…The attorney of the plaintiffs said that their clients received goods worth 3,377,75-TL against the invoice dated 06.04.2010 as a gift to N..A., who are relatives of their clients from the defendant company, and that they also liked some items for themselves and a total of 6.000-TL from the defendant.
