Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey 15.Legal Department Basis: 2019/2119 Decision: 2020/662 Decision Date: 19.02.2020

Summary: Although the plaintiff-the defendant in the combined file has explained that the contractor was dismissed from the trustee by the land owners during the continuation of the construction, so there was a delay, it is understood that there was no review in this regard by the court. The growth of the construction area court about the impact additional expense and expenditure report for the period should be decided according to the results obtained from experts review an incomplete while not as requested in the petition decision was correct under the terms of the numbers of independent parts with different part numbers because there is no clarity on what grounds an independent decision about what is on the grounds of corruption was approved when it should incorrectly when understood through the examination this time, plaintiff-file combined with the acceptance of the request for the correction of the decision of the defendant, the Supreme Court 23. It was found appropriate that the legal department … overturned the decision by removing the Decree No.

(492 P. K. m. 42)

The plaintiff with the defendants Heirs … 1-… 2-… 3-… 4-… 5-… 6-…, the plaintiffs in the case, the heirs combined 2013/780 main numbered … 1-… 2-… 3-… 4-… 5-… 6-… for the case of the defendant 3. 24.11.2015 days and 2010/134 E. issued by the Court of First Instance-2015 / 561 K. affirming Provision No. 23. Law Department 26.02.2019 day and 2016/1932 E.-2019 / 706 K. a request for correction of the decision was made by the attorney of the plaintiff-the defendant in the combined file against the ad, and the documents in the file were read and considered necessary, although it was understood that the request for correction of the decision was issued within the time limit:

DECISION

Actual and combined case floor equivalent construction

23 of the Supreme Court on appeal by the plaintiff-the plaintiff of the combined file of the decision made by the court on the partial acceptance of the original case and the rejection of the combined case. 26.02.2019 date 2016/1932 basis 2019/706 decision issued by the legal department against the approval notice-a request for correction of the decision was made by the plaintiff-the merged file plaintiff.Although, as a rule, the request for correction of the decision must be examined by the Legal Department of the Supreme Court, which conducts an appellate review; Supreme Court Grand General Assembly 09.02.2018 day 2018/1 division of Labor decision with land share provision construction construction

it is the duty of the Supreme Court to examine the appeals or decision correction requests in the files arising from the contract and coming to the Supreme Court as a request for appeal or correction of the decision after 01.07.2016.15. Since it was given to the legal department, the request for correction of the decision was examined by our department.

1-according to the articles in the file, the necessary reasons specified in the court’s decision and adopted in the Supreme Court’s declaration, and in particular, organized between the parties

5 of the convention. Article 14, which contains the provision” according to the zoning situation that the municipality will give, the parties will receive apartments in relation to their rates”. in the article ” construction that can be done in the event of a zoning change in the event of any changes in M2…. land owner’s apartments available

it’ll stay as in the contract. The number of apartments falling to the contractor’s share will be reduced and increased.”in which the provision is found, these provisions are contradictory provisions

5, which has priority in the ranking of the court, since there is no separate provision on which to give priority if there are contradictory provisions in the contract. based on the article

according to the share rate in the contract,there was no hit in the decision to cancel the title and register, and of course, when the settlement was received in relation to 2 apartments left as collateral, it was necessary to reject other requests for correction of the decision, which are outside the scope of the following bend of the plaintiff.

2-in the case of the plaintiff contractor, the defendant construction in exchange for the floor arranged between the land owner and

according to the agreement, the deed of partition numbers in the petition with the cancellation of the registration on behalf of the independent reporting 22 and wanted to give a decision, the defendant zoning of the land owner will have a share due to the increase in the defense of the denial decision by explaining that the independent sections of the case wanted to give the file required delivery in the case of combined apartments

stating that the contract was not completed within the agreed time period, the plaintiff-the defendant of the merged file asked the contractor to decide on the collection of the delay compensation. The court decided to partially accept the original case and accept the combined case. Held between the parties

construction the contract to be made

it was decided to obtain the construction license within 3 months from the date of the contract and to finish it within 18 months, that is, on 06.11.2009. According to the scope of the file, it is understood that the construction area was enlarged by obtaining a renovation license after the construction began. For this reason, it is imperative that the impact of the expansion of the construction area on the duration be taken into account. On the other hand, although the plaintiff-the defendant in the combined file, the contractor explained that he was dismissed from the trustee by the land owners during the continuation of the construction, so there was a delay, it is understood that there was no review by the court on this issue. The growth of the construction area court about the impact additional expense and expenditure report for the period should be decided according to the results obtained from experts review an incomplete while not as requested in the petition decision was correct under the terms of the numbers of independent parts with different part numbers because there is no clarity on what grounds an independent decision about what is on the grounds of corruption was approved when it should incorrectly when understood through the examination this time, plaintiff-file combined with the acceptance of the request for the correction of the decision of the defendant, the Supreme Court 23. It was found appropriate to overturn the decision by removing the legal department’s 2016/1932 Decision No. 2016/706.

Result: 1 above. for the reasons described in Paragraph 2, the plaintiff-merged defendant’s refusal of other requests for correction of the decision. with the acceptance of requests for correction of the decision for the reasons described in paragraph 23 of the Supreme Court. 26.02.2019 of the legal department 2016/1932 based on 2019/706 Decision No. of 2016/1932 to cancel the decision to disrupt the decision, paid 5766 no. of law 11. in accordance with the amendment to Article 42/2-d of the law on fees, it was unanimously decided on 19.02.2020 that the appellate expense received in excess, if any, should be returned to the appellate plaintiff-the defendant of the merged file, the advance cost of correcting the decision paid to the plaintiff-the defendant of the merged file, who wants to correct the decision on request. (¤¤) < / b