T.C. SUPREME
23.Legal Department

Basis: 2014/539
Decision: 2014/4650
Decision Date: 17.06.2014

CASE FOR CANCELLATION OF APPEAL – NO LEGAL RELATIONSHIP OR REASON ARISING FROM A CONTRACT OR LAW PROVIDING FOR JOINT AND FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY – HOLDING THE NATURAL PERSON RESPONSIBLE THE NEED TO DECIDE ON DISMISSAL OF THE CASE RELATED TO THE COMPANY

Abstract: the court must be satisfied with the fact that the defendant is held responsible by the natural person, taking into account that there is no legal relationship and reason arising from a contract or law providing for joint and Mutual Liability, and the case related to the defendant company must be decided to be dismissed due to the absence of passive animosity.

(2004 p. K. m. 67) (818 P. K. m. 141) (6098 S. K. m. 162)

Case: at the end of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the appeal between the parties, the file was reviewed and considered by the defendants ‘ attorney during the term of the provision given for the partial acceptance of the case for reasons written in the application.:

Verdict: Attorney of the plaintiff, defendant M. P. K.’s other defendant due to the activities of the company, at the client’s hotel in 2010, in October-December period stayed several times, this accommodation in the invoice to the defendant company the defendant paid part of the bill of costs for the implementation of the service, despite 17.799,89 TL 5 bill hadn’t been paid, the invoice in question, along with the enforcement proceedings initiated for collection of receivables accrued interests to the purpose of defendants ‘ objections on the grounds that it was unfair of the withdrawal of the appeal with 40% of demand and has prosecuted the defendant deny the collection of executive compensation.

Counsel for the defendants, due to the absence of animosity from the client’s company side of the case, his client M. P. K. he defended his refusal on the ground.

According to the court, the claim, defense, expert report and the scope of the file; the defendant is the director of the company, the other defendant is M. P. K.as the director of the defendant company, from time to time he was staying at the hotel belonging to the plaintiff, this matter is accepted by both parties, the fee for some of the stays made by the defendant Breeze was paid by the other defendant company (payments dated 09.02.2009 and 02.03.2009), but some payments were not made, in this regard, the defendant M. P. K.it was found that the defendant owed TL 17,799. 89, although the defendant’s company attorney was the defendant of the accommodation. P. K. although it was argued that the other defendant company did not have a driver’s license for animosity, the statements submitted by the parties to the file, the defendant M. P. K.commercial company records that the defendant was an official of the company, the defendant’s invoices for periods when the same defendant previously stayed at the same hotel. P. K. in this respect, this matter has become a mutad practice between the parties, and the defendant has been paid by the other defendant company. P. K.on the grounds that the defendant remained at the hotel as an official of the company, so the defendant firm was also responsible for the debt in question, the default before follow-up did not occur, the receivable was liquid, with the partial acceptance of the case,it was decided to cancel the appeal for the actual receivable of us $ 17,799.89 and collect 40% of executive denial compensation from the defendants.

The defendants ‘ attorney appealed the decision.

1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the necessary reasons, the lack of a hit in the evaluation of the evidence, the defendant M. P. K. his deputy’s appeals have not been seen in place.

2-as for the appeals of the defendant’s company attorney;

a) the case relates to the request for the cancellation of the appeal against the enforcement proceedings initiated for the collection of the accommodation service fee. In the court, the defendant m. on the dates of the invoice, which constitute the basis for the subject matter to be followed in the justification section of the provision. P. K.it was stated that he was staying at the hotel owned by the plaintiff, and this defendant was also held liable. The defendant’s attorney argued that this client stayed at the hotel, that this client paid the debt of the period in which he stayed, and that the client’s company could not be held responsible. 141 of the BC No. 818, which was in force as of the date of the case. (162 of TBK.) article; “If each of the multiple debtors informs the creditor that he has agreed to be responsible for the entire debt, fiduciary indebtedness arises. If there is no such notification, fiduciary indebtedness arises only in the cases provided for by law.”contains the provision. In this case, considering that there is no legal relationship or reason arising from a contract or law providing for joint and fiduciary liability by the court, the defendant M. P. K.the case against the defendant company should be decided to be dismissed due to the absence of passive animosity, while the defendant M. P. K.on the grounds that the defendant is an official of the defendant company, that invoices for previous stays at the same hotel were paid by the defendant company, this became a practice between the parties, so the defendant company was also responsible for the debt, it was not right that the defendant company was also responsible for the debt that was subject to follow-up, this time based on the contentious debt that was subject to follow-up.

b) according to the reason for the violation, other appeals of the defendant’s company attorney were not required to be examined.

Conclusion: for the reasons described in Paragraph (1) Above, the defendant m. P. K.for the reasons described in paragraph (2a), for the acceptance of the appeals of the defendant’s attorney, the provision is broken for the benefit of the defendant’s company, for the reasons described in paragraph (2b), there is no room for the other appeals of the defendant’s attorney to be examined, for the approval fee written below, the appellant P. K.a unanimous decision was made on 17.06.2014, to make the decision clear within 15 days from the notification of the decision.