THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DEBTOR – BILLS THAT DO NOT HAVE A DISTINCTIVE FEATURE DO NOT HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY CHARACTER – SUPREME COURT DECISION

16 Feb THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DEBTOR – BILLS THAT DO NOT HAVE A DISTINCTIVE FEATURE DO NOT HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY CHARACTER – SUPREME COURT DECISION

T.C. Court of Cassation 8. Department of Law E: 2018/304, K: 2018/1828, K.T.: 08.03.2018

At the end of the trial between the parties in the case described above, the Court decided to accept the case, and after the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s dec, the Apartment file was examined and considered necessary.

decision :

Plaintiff 3. the person requested that the confiscation of the items belonging to him at his workplace, that the debtor has nothing to do with the embarrassed goods, that the debtor started operating a cafe in the same place after closing his business, and that the decision be made to remove the foreclosure on his client’s goods with the acceptance of the ration case.

The defendant’s deputy creditor stated that both the debtor … and his wife … were present at both foreclosure proceedings held in the same place and argued that the case should be dismissed.

According to the witness statements, the court decided to accept the case and to remove the liens on the embarrassments 2 months after decanting the debtor’s own goods at the foreclosure address, on the grounds that the plaintiff started his activity by bringing the goods belonging to him to the workplace, the plaintiff did not take the business over, the defendant could not determine that there was a kinship and organic bond between the debtor and the plaintiff.

The decision was appealed by the defendant creditor’s deputy.

The case is based on Article 96 of the IIK of the third party. et al. it relates to a claim for rations based on its articles.

The subject of the lawsuit, the foreclosure, was made in the presence of the debtor at the address ”…”. On the other hand, the notification of the payment order issued to the address ‘…”, which is the address of residence of the borrower, is sent to the plaintiff 3 as a co-worker in the same place at the foreclosure address.it was made to the person. In addition, the debtor and the debtor’s spouse were present at the foreclosure subject to the case, as well as the foreclosure dated 19.12.2014, which was made in the same place. In addition, plaintiff 3. the person continued to use the same Title “…” used by the debtor. Accordingly, the presumption of ownership provided for in Article 97/a of the IIK is for the benefit of the debtor and therefore the creditor. Contrary to this legal presumption, plaintiff 3. it must be proved by a person with convincing and strong evidence.

Plaintiff 3. invoices and witness statements on which the person relies, some of which have dates after the birth of the debt and do not have distinctive features, do not constitute strong evidence in ration cases and are not sufficient to prove the contrary of the presumption of ownership.

Therefore, considering these material and legal facts, it was not right for the court to establish a provision for the acceptance of the case on the grounds that it could occur instead of rejection and did not correspond to the content of the file.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, the provision of acceptance of appeals by the defendant creditor’s attorney is based on Article 366 of the IIK and Article 428 of the HUMK. in accordance with Article 366/3 of the IIK by the parties to the BREAKDOWN. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 08.02.2018 that a request for correction of the decision against the decision could be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court’s Department.