THE RESULTS OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATORY ACTION

Conclusion of the Negative Determination Case in Favor of the Creditor
If the case is concluded in favor of the creditor, that is, it is rejected, it is determined by the final provision that the legal relationship on which the receivable subject to follow-up is based exists and is valid. If the case was filed before the follow-up, the creditor has the opportunity to apply for a permanent enforcement action with the amount he has obtained.

If the case is rejected, the injunction taken by the debtor in exchange for the guarantee to be shown not less than fifteen percent of the receivable is lifted. According to the Supreme Court, there is no need to finalize the decision for this. Since the creditor reaches his/her receivables late due to the negative determination case, compensation in the amount of 20% of the amount subject to the lawsuit against the debtor is decided. In order for such compensation to be awarded, the debtor must have stopped the enforcement proceedings by taking an injunction with a vices detection case or prevented the money in the enforcement office from being paid to the creditor. If such an injunction has not been decided, 20% compensation will not be awarded against the debtor, as there will be no damage to the creditor.

Conclusion of the Negative Determination Case in Favor of the Debtor
In other words, if the plaintiff finds that the plaintiff has no debt to the defendant, the enforcement proceedings and the foreclosure process become unlawful if they have been made if the plaintiff wins the vile determination case filed by the debtor during or after the enforcement proceedings. With the adoption of the case, the final verdict in favor of the debtor occurs. Because this case is resolved according to the general provisions . For this reason, the parties cannot file a new lawsuit based on the same issue. Upon the conclusion of the case in favor of the debtor, the follow-up stops immediately. If it is decided that the plaintiff has no debts at all, the execution is fully, partially reinstated if it is decided that he is partially indebted. If the final decision is submitted to the executive office, the executive director shall perform the reinstatement procedures on his own. If the case is concluded in favor of the debtor, the injunction decisions issued are eliminated . The money at the executive cashier’s office is given to the debtor . For this, the drug does not need to be finalized . However, due to the precautionary measure, the debtor can receive the deposit in the event that the amount is finalized. Another consequence of the conclusion of the case in favor of the debtor is that the creditor may face compensation . If it becomes clear that the proceedings forcing the debtor to open a case of vices are unfair and malicious, at his request, it is also decided to collect the damage suffered by the debtor due to the lawsuit from the creditor. The damage to be appreciated cannot be less than twenty percent of the amount that you will receive as a result of unfair follow-up. As it is clear from the article, such compensation cannot be provided in favor of the debtor in cases of negative identification filed before the enforcement proceedings.

Court of Cassation 7. HD. ,E. 2012/4217K. , 2013/174 , T. 17.1.2013 ;

“Article 67/2 of the Law on Enforcement and Bankruptcy. the article stipulates that if the enforcement proceedings are unfair and malicious, compensation will be awarded against the creditor. In order for compensation to be decided in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the provision of the aforementioned law, it is necessary that the enforcement proceedings conducted by the defendant / creditor are unfair, as well as the proceedings are conducted in bad faith. It is understood that the defendant’s malice cannot be proved in the current case. As a result, the defendant’s bad faith cannot be mentioned and compensation for bad faith cannot be ruled against him. The fact that this aspect referred to by the court was ignored and a bad faith compensation was ruled against the defendant required to deconstruct it by being contrary to the procedure and the law.’’