T.C SUPREME COURT 12.Legal Department Base: 2010/ 32724 Decision: 2011 / 15605 Decision Date: 07.07.2014

The Decision of the Supreme Court

COURT : Izmir 4. Executive Civil Court

DATE : 29/07/2010

NUMBER : 2010/537-2010/1071

The date and number written above were read by the appellant upon the request of the creditor for the examination within the time limit of the court decision, and the file related to this work was sent from the scene to the apartment and discussed and considered as necessary :

Izmir 1. Information about the company owed by the deputy creditorThe Commercial Court of First Instance dated 29.03.2010 and dated 2010/312 D.enforcement proceedings were initiated by way of foreclosure for foreign exchange notes on 30.03.2010 with the injunction lien decision No. 10, payment order No. 10 was notified to the debtor on 01.04.2010, and at the request of the creditor’s deputy, it was seen that foreclosures were applied based on the injunction lien decision on 05.04.2010.

Apply to the deputy bailiff’s court the borrower; act like there’s a finalized track of the foreclosure process could not be implemented in the memorandum of lien the lien liens that love was not made and given information about asserting that has requested the cancellation of the preservation process vesting.

Although the follow-up has not been finalized, there is no violation of the procedure and law in the foreclosure and custody process conducted on 05.04.2010 in the face of a valid injunction decision. However, if the foreclosure is made in excess of the amount of debt determined in the injunction foreclosure decision, the borrower may make this issue the subject of a complaint. As a matter of fact, the debtor also claimed that transcendental foreclosure was made in the complaint petition.

In that case, the court should make a decision on the rejection of the complaint regarding the removal of the foreclosure and preservation process and the conclusion that will be formed by examining the foreclosure process, while the provision on the acceptance of the request with a written justification is incorrect. CONCLUSION: The decision of the court on the acceptance of the creditor’s appeals is based on the above-mentioned reasons.366. and HUMK.428. according to the articles (ON ITS DETERIORATION), it was decided unanimously on the day 07/07/2011.