As a Result of an Account Error, It Was Decided by The Court To Take The Expenses Paid From The Defendant and Give Them To the Plaintiff

24 Jun As a Result of an Account Error, It Was Decided by The Court To Take The Expenses Paid From The Defendant and Give Them To the Plaintiff

Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey

15.Legal Department
Basis: 2016/577
Decision: 2016/3867
Decision Date: 14.07.2016

A LAWSUIT ARISING FROM THE WORK CONTRACT – AS A RESULT OF AN ACCOUNT ERROR, IT WAS DECIDED TO COLLECT THE FEE FROM THE DEFENDANT – THE REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF THE DECISION WAS SEEN ON THE SPOT IN THIS DIRECTION AND ACCEPTED TO CORRECT THE MATERIAL ERROR

Abstract: since the Local Court decision has been upheld,including the Court of Cassation application fee required to be taken in accordance with the fees law over the accepted part of the case,it is appropriate to correct the material error by accepting the request for correction of the decision,since this time the decision was made to collect the expenses of 56,422,85 TL from the defendant as a result of the calculation, after deducting the fees of the preliminary appeal fee of 45,063, 70 TL 11,359, 15 TL from the preliminary appeal fee.

(6098 P. K. m. 470)

Case and verdict: plaintiff .. Architecture Inşaat Turizm San. and tic. Ltd. Şti. with the defendant .. Food Products San. and tic. A.P. because of the case between the Commercial Court of First Instance issued .. day, and .. our apartment that approved the numbered provision .. day, and .. a request was made by the defendant’s attorney to correct the decision against the ad and it was understood that the decision was made within the period of the petition for correction, but the papers in the file were read and considered the need to speak and think:

The case relates to the cancellation of the appeal and the request for continuation of the follow-up to the unannounced execution request made for the collection of the balance work fee arising from the work contract. The court issued a decision on the partial acceptance of the case on appeal by the deputies of the parties .. day.. A request for correction of the decision was made by the defendant’s attorney during his term against the decision no.

1-according to the articles in the file, the necessary reasons specified in the court’s decision and adopted in the Supreme Court’s application, other requests for correction of decisions that fall outside the scope of the following bend of the defendant’s attorney were not seen in place, they were required to be rejected.

2-Duties on the part of the case accepted the decision of the local court that approved the Supreme Court, including how to contact the mortar is required to be taken under the law of 45.063, $ 70 cash received from fees 11.359 writ of ratification, £ 15 in advance 33.704 fee after deduction of the appeals,a defendant who appeals from the writ of 55 TL ratification of fees should be made when the decision to be taken 56.422 the result of miscalculation,85 TL fees from the defendant to the collection in these times where the decision is made that has been performed in this direction was observed and understood in the adoption of the decision for the correction of a material error correction is approved.

Result: 1 Above. refusal of other requests for correction of the defendant’s decision for the reasons described in Paragraph 2. in accordance with the bent, in the part of the approval application of our department after the signatures, the defendant is entitled 45.063,70 TL ilam fee + 11.359,15 TL advance fee =56,422,85 TL balance fee instead of removing the spreadsheet in the form of 45.063, 70 TL ilam fee – 11.359, £ 15 advance mortar = 33.704,55 TL to see, to be written as a mortar, and the decision of the Department on a warrant from our apartment in the sixth line of balance from the word “56.422,85 TL” was removed from the figure and the text of the decision instead of “33.704,55 TL” number to be written and paid to the correction of material errors in the warrant approval to our apartment after correction of the decision on the request of seeking rectification of the mortar to be returned to the defendant, 14.07.2016, on the day it was decided unanimously. (¤¤)