T.C.
SUPREME
19. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/3357
DECISION NO: 2016/13899
DECISION DATE: 24.10.2016

> > EXCHANGE FOLLOW-UP, NEGATIVE DETECTION CASE BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE DEED IS A GUARANTEE, BURDEN OF PROOF AND EVIDENCE STATUS

6100 / m.222/5

6102 / m.64

Summary: the case is related to the negative determination prompt.

The plaintiff, due to the follow-up related to the foreign exchange deed initiated against him, claimed that the follow-up deed was given for collateral and requested to determine the negative. The plaintiff must prove these claims with a written document. Since the defendant’s books are not based exclusively on evidence in the petition, the defendant’s failure to present the book does not constitute a presumption that the case has been proved by interpretation in favor of the plaintiff. The court’s decision to “accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff has proved the plaintiff’s claim, since the defendant has avoided presenting his books”, while the plaintiff’s evidence based on the written document should be evaluated and evaluated according to its conclusion, was required to be annulled.

Case: at the end of the trial of the case against the parties, the file was examined and considered upon appeal by the attorney of the plaintiff within the period of the sentence given for the rejection of the case due to reasons written in the decree.:

DECISION

The attorney of the plaintiff demanded and sued that the execution was followed for his client, that the promissory note worth TL 30,000 was given for collateral, that the “for collateral” portion was cut with scissors, that the maturity date was added later and that the case filed in the Heavy Criminal Court was still ongoing because of this issue, and that

The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff must prove with written evidence that he is not indebted based on the year of the debt.

By The Court, HMK No. 6100 Is 222/5.in accordance with Article 64 of TCC No. 6102 since the defendant is a merchant, commercial books are not presented despite the exact time given to the defendant to present his commercial books.it was decided to accept the case on the grounds that the defendant had to clearly reveal the debt and debt relations in his books in accordance with the article, and that the plaintiff had proved the plaintiff’s claim, since the defendant had avoided presenting his books, and the sentence was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.

The plaintiff, due to the follow-up related to the foreign exchange deed initiated against him, claimed that the follow-up deed was given for collateral and requested to determine the negative. The plaintiff must prove these claims with a written document. Since the defendant’s books are not based exclusively on evidence in the petition, the defendant’s failure to present the book does not constitute a presumption that the case has been proved by interpretation in favor of the plaintiff. The court, in accordance with the principle described above, should evaluate the plaintiff’s evidence based on the written document and be evaluated according to its conclusion, the decision in written form required to be overturned.

Conclusion: it was unanimously decided on 24.10.2016 that the provision should be impaired for the benefit of the defendant due to the reasons described above, and that the advance fee should be returned upon request.