T.C. SUPREME
11.Legal Department

Main: 2004/5892
Decision: 2005/3009
Decision Date: 29.03.2005

Abstract: the plaintiff is a Czech discoverer, and the case for the cancellation of the check filed must be rejected.

(6762 P. K. m. 669, 730)

Case: Aydin Asliye 1 in the case between the parties. 15.12.2003 date and 2003/578 – 2003/1387 decision issued by the court of Cassation was asked by the acting plaintiff and it was understood that the appeal was granted within the period, the examination Judge for the case file said C. after hearing the report organized by and again the petition in the file, the minutes of the hearing and all the documents were read and examined, the need for work was discussed and considered:

Verdict: acting plaintiff, the check written by his client to the bearer 5,000,000,000.- Sedat Ö by writing TL price.he demanded and sued for the cancellation of the check, claiming that he had prepared for it to be given, but had lost it, and that he would suffer damage if the check was presented.

His attorney, who participated in the case, argued that his client was the subject of the case, and that he was the good bearer because he had no legal relationship with the plaintiff, which he passed to him through turnover, and asked for a decision to dismiss the case.

According to the claim, intervention petition and collected evidence, the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the subject of the case was discovered in the bearer of the check, intervened with turnover, and there was no valid evidence for the claim of disappearance.

730/20 article of the Turkish Commercial Code to be filed in accordance with article 669 ncu and its continuation articles of the same law, as well as the nature of the work and the legal consequences that it will cause, the right to file a claim for cancellation due to the loss of the check in this case is a recognized right of the beneficiary and pregnant, and the kashidec does not have the right to file a claim for cancellation based on these legal provisions.

In a concrete case, the plaintiff is a Czech discoverer, and in accordance with the above-mentioned principles, it is not considered correct to decide to reject the case on different grounds, when the case for the cancellation of the check filed should be rejected, H.U.M.K. in accordance with article 438/last, the court’s justification was changed and the provision that was correct as a result had to be upheld on the grounds described.

Conclusion: for the reasons described above, it was decided by unanimous decision on 29.03.2005 that the decision should be upheld with the reasons described and the provision should be upheld with the reasons described, the following balance should be received from the appellant of UAH 1.10.