T.C SUPREME COURT 12.Legal Department Base: 2010/ 33354 Decision: 2011 / 15606 Decision Date: 07.07.2014

The Decision of the Supreme Court

COURT : Kucukcekmece 1. Executive Civil Court

DATE : 24/06/2010

NUMBER : 2009/580-2010/737

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

IIKU 124/3. in accordance with the article, it is written in the specification that those who will participate in the increase must deposit a letter of guarantee of a pei akçesi or a national bank in relation to twenty percent of the muhammen value of the immovable property. 124/4 of the same law. in accordance with the article, the creditor who has the right to the real estate put up for sale will receive it, and in the case of participation in the auction in accordance with the ratio written in the above paragraph, there is also no pey akçe and collateral are not sought.

In the concrete case, the value of the real estate subject to sale is 180.000 YTL according to the expert report dated 15.08.2008. it has been determined that the guarantee that will be taken for participation in the auction in the real estate auction announcement and specification is 36,000 USD. it has been determined that. In this case, it is mandatory to deposit the specified guarantee to participate in the tender. If the amount of receivables of the file creditor is sufficient to cover the collateral, collateral is also not required. If the amount of receivables is not enough to cover the collateral, in this case, the missing part is completed and accepted for tender.

In that case, the court should make a decision according to the result that will occur after examining the complaint in this direction and determining whether the creditor of the file will meet the amount of collateral at the tender date, while it was not considered correct to reach a conclusion in writing with an incomplete review.

CONCLUSION : The court decision on the acceptance of the debtor’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.