T.C THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
19.law office
Base: 2017/ 1359
Decision: 2018 / 3439
Date of Decision: 20.06.2018
At the end of the trial conducted in accordance with the deconstruction of the case of a negative determination between the parties, the file was examined, the need to be discussed and considered after the defendant appealed the decision to partially accept the case for reasons written in the decision.

Decision: the plaintiff’s attorney, the defendant, execution, monitoring is carried out based on the check against be distorted by the amount of pull on the basis 13.000,00 TL drawer designs has been issued by the change that was made to pick up if bills as lost, lost the turnover of the legal validity of the prosecution is continuing the investigation, law enforcement, based on the expert report of the court of follow-up, I decided to cancel the enforcement proceedings that the defendant owed the plaintiff is twisted by specifying that with the cancellation of determining whether at least 40% compensation kotuniyet has prosecuted and demand that it be given to the decision.

The defendant’s counsel, for the defendant to know whether or not the check from the check has been tampered with, the qualification of the cheque is not in the objection that the plaintiff at the time of exchange were not made law enforcement a court decision that is composed of The Shape of the reviews, he was tried on fraud charges in criminal court and the plaintiff’s endorser, the accused …’s accept accusation, noting that the denial of the plaintiff of the case moves along with the endorser and 40% wanted to be given to the decision to deny executive compensation.

According to the evidence collected by the court, … 2.The Executive Civil Court dated 11/10/2011, 2011/262 E.-2011/814K. Ref No. underlying execution proceedings where the decision is made on the cancellation of the file contained within 08/09/2011 dated alterations have been identified in the report of the forensic expert, where exchange as the cheque is lost from debtors in criminal proceedings the Czech …’s that profess tampered with the check when the plaintiff to the defendant 3.000,00 TL owed constant, that is, where the plaintiff’s Petition Hearing, dated 21/06/2012 and confess that pull at the case on the grounds that upon the adoption of the partial TL 3.000.00, it was decided to pay 40% compensation over 10.000.00 TL, the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s deputy and the decision was made by our Department dated 17.01.2013, 2012/14398 E. 17.01.2013 to determine that the plaintiff does not owe the defendant due to the portion other than the interest and taxes corresponding to this amount and TL 3.000.00 TL from the 14.732.00 TL. – 2013/840 K. “Although the partial acceptance of the case has been decided by the court considering the report received in the Executive Law Court by the court that has filed a negative determination lawsuit stating that the 3.000 TL has been corrected and falsified in the form of 13.000 TL on the deed in which the plaintiff is the beneficiary, the expert report received in this court cannot be based on the judgment in the Court of First Instance, which is the general court, because the Executive Law Courts are a narrow competent court. In addition, since it is understood that the trial in the Heavy Criminal Court is continuing in the matter of forgery, the determination of the material fact of the verdict in the Heavy Criminal Court is binding on the legal judge. While the expert examination should be conducted and decided according to the result of the criminal trial by the court, it was not considered correct to make a decision as a result of the incomplete examination, and the decision had to be overturned.” as a result of the trial conducted in accordance with the violation, as a result of the trial held in the High Criminal Court, it was decided to acquit the plaintiff of forgery and qualified fraud crimes in the official document, as a result of the appeal review, the decision was finalized, a partial acceptance of the case was decided on the grounds that the plaintiff was not responsible for the falsification of the check, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.

1 – file in the posts, in accordance with any decision by the court has not decided whether to review evidence in the case of a lack misses, disturbing the north direction to be explored in relation to objections to appeals are outside the scope according to whether the defendant of counsel on appeal that fall outside the scope of the following clause of Appeal is dismissed.

2- Although the case is a negative determination case and according to the result of the investigation conducted by the court, the basis of the follow-up is understood to be TL 3,000, while the check was falsified to TL 13,000, the defendant was not owed in the follow-up part of the calculation and the negative determination decision had to be made, while the part owed by stating the positive determination provision was not correct to establish a positive determination.

3- Defendant tracking creditor tracking basis since the defendant did not receive the bond from the plaintiff with a turnover and received it from an out-of-court person, and the decision of the criminal court on the matter stated that the falsification was capable of seduction, the defendant should not be held liable for unfair tracking compensation, but his liability should be overturned.

Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 20.06.2018 to reject the defendant’s other appeals for the reasons described in paragraph (1) above, to OVERTURN the decision for the defendant’s benefit for the reasons described in paragraphs (2) and (3), to return the advance fee to the respondent who appealed upon request