T.C.
SUPREME
8. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/661
DECISION NO: 2016/1136
DECISION DATE: 25.1.2016

> COMPANY PROPERTY CANNOT BE FORECLOSED ON DUE TO THE COMPANY PARTNER’S PERSONAL ALIMONY DEBT—CLAIM FOR RATIONS OF THE THIRD PARTY

6102 / m.133
2004 / m.96

Summary: the case relates to the ration claim of the third party.

The follow-up in the case was initiated due to alimony debt and is the personal debt of the debtor, the partner of the company. 6102 S.K. Md. 133 in accordance with the company’s balance sheet, the personal creditor of one of the shareholders has the right to obtain and make Lien from the profit and liquidation share that will fall to the debtor as a result of the balance sheet arrangement, or from the other receivables of the partner from the company through the sequestration of the shares that belong to the debtors, In addition, since the confiscation of the company’s assets due to the personal debt of the company partner debtor is against procedure and law, the decision to reject the case should be accepted is not accurate.

Case: within the period of the court decision with the date and number written above, the examination of the appellant was sent to the office from the file site upon request by the appellant and after listening to the report prepared by the audit judge for the case file and reading and reviewing all documents in the file,:

DECISION

Plaintiff 3.person deputy on 4.6.2013, the client requested and sued the decision to abolish the foreclosure by stating that the company’s real estate has been confiscated, that the debtor is a partner of the company, that the company’s property cannot be confiscated due to the personal debt of the company’s partner.

The defendant requested that they initiate enforcement proceedings for the collection of alimony determined for the deputy creditor, his client and his joint children, and that after the foreclosure, the plaintiff company intentionally made claims for rations, and that it was intended to prolong the case, so that the case should be dismissed.

At the end of the trial, the decision to dismiss the ration case was appealed by the plaintiff’s third party company attorney.

No. 6100 Of HMK 33. in accordance with the article, it is up to the judge to make legal qualifiers for the parties to put forward material events and to determine the articles of the law to be applied. According to the manner in which the claim is put forward, the case is based on the fact that the third person is the 96th president of the ICU. et al. in accordance with the provisions of the “ration” case, it is in the nature, and according to this qualification by the court, judgment has been decided.

The follow-up was initiated due to alimony debt and is the personal debt of the debtor, the partner of the company. No. 133 Of The TCC No. 6102. in accordance with the article, the personal creditor of one of the shareholders has the right to obtain the profit share from that partner in accordance with the company’s balance sheet and if the company has been terminated, if the balance sheet has not yet been arranged, he has the authority to obtain the profit and liquidation share that will fall to the debtor as a result of In addition, since the confiscation of the assets of the company due to the personal debt of the company partner debtor is against the law and procedure, it is not right to decide to reject the case in writing when it is necessary to accept it.

Conclusion: for the reason described above, the third-party attorney of the plaintiff accepted the appeal of the appeal of the sentence 366 of the ICJ. and provisional 3 of HMK No. 6100. article 428 of Humk, 1086, by dispatch. in accordance with article 366/3 of the ICJ by the parties. in accordance with the articles, it was decided unanimously on 25.1.2016 that a request for correction of the decision can be made within 10 days of the notification of the court of Cassation’s office against the decision and that a cash fee of TL 24.30 can be returned to the appellant.