T.C.
\nSupreme
\n12. Legal Department<\/p>\n
Principal No: 2014\/12157
\nDecision No: 2014\/14423
\nK. Date: 14.5.2014<\/p>\n
After hearing the report prepared by the court judge for the case file and reading and reviewing all documents in the file, the work requirement was discussed and considered after the court decision with the date and number written above was requested by the debtor.:<\/p>\n
If other appeals are not in place, See also;<\/p>\n
168\/4 of the iik of the debtor upon notification of Payment Order Number 10, in which execution is followed by foreclosure on foreign exchange promissory notes based on one bond by the creditor.applying to the execution court within the legal 5-day period stipulated in the article, claiming that the amount of the deed which is the basis of the follow-up has been falsified by adding the figure of \u201c0\u201d while the amount shown in the figure of \u201c1000\u201d is TL 10.000, and claiming that the portion of the debt of 1000 TL 750 is paid, the denial of the claim by the decision of the court is given.<\/p>\n
Of TCC no 6762 690. submitting of the article of the same law that should be applied about bonds with 588\/1. pursuant ( TCC No. 6102.778\/2 s-C bonds of the same law that should be applied with reference 676\/1. item) and also indicated by writing the two figures of both the bond price and the price if a difference is found between the price of the article on how to be shown with the reputation of the provision for the implementation of any alterations to be made in the number and type of the record is required. If it is determined that the falsification has been done, the deed must be considered valid for the amount before the falsification (HGK. 14.05.2003 T. 2003\/12-347 E. 2003\/345 K.).<\/p>\n
HMK’s 207. (HUMK.nun 298.) in accordance with the provisions of the article, the protrusion, scrape or deletion in the deed is not taken into consideration in case of denial if it is not also certified . In other words, the changes made on the deed must be approved by the regulator by Signature or initialisation in order to be valid.<\/p>\n
In the report dated 12.06.2012 of the Department of Forensic Medicine Department of Physics conducted as a result of expert examination commissioned by the court on falsification; \u201cthe amount figures in the deed subject of examination in one step of the existing \u201c0\u201d figure is thinner than the \u201c0\u201d figures before it, with a larger area and different reverse style and was added later\u201d was reported.<\/p>\n
In the report dated 20.02.2013 of Ankara Criminal Police Laboratory Directorate, which was taken into consideration in the criminal investigation initiated by the debtor regarding the falsification of the bond.; it is observed that the numbers \u201c10,000\u201d in the value digit of the note are repeated with the same item except for the number \u201c0\u201d in the one digit and that the distances from the numbers \u201c10,000\u201d to the closing lines of the number \u201c1\u201d at the beginning of the right and the number \u201c0\u201d at the end are different,and that the sign (dot) , although it has been evaluated as possible and probable that the value of the note has been falsified from \u201c1000\u201d to \u201c10000\u201d TL by adding the number \u201c0\u201d in the one digit of the \u201c10,000\u201d digit in the value digit indicated by the figure in question, it has been reported that no final result statement could be made due to the fact that<\/p>\n
In the specialisation report dated 25.11.2013 of Ankara Gendarmerie General Command issued by Seydi\u015fehir Heavy Criminal Court, it is stated that \u201cit is not possible to declare a positive or negative opinion on whether the repeated passes were made for the purpose of falsification or for the purpose of Correction of a transaction which was made on the basis of \u201c0\u201d<\/p>\n
Although the court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that \u201cthe addition of the \u201c0\u201d figure to the one digit of the \u201c10,000\u201d figure in the sum digit of the deed could not be clearly revealed whether it was for the purpose of falsification or not, this later addition may have been made for the purpose of Correction”; the report dated 12.06.2012; it was determined that the \u201c10,000\u201d figure shown in the quantity digits of the note was added to the existing \u201c0\u201d figure in one digit and that the amount portion of the note which is \u201c1000\u201d was converted to \u201c10,000\u201dby falsification. The expert report of the Ankara Criminal Police Laboratory Directorate issued in the criminal investigation and prosecution related to the matter, dated 20.02.2013, and the expert report of the Ankara Gendarmerie General Command dated 25.11.2013, were found not to contradict the report of the Forensic Medicine Institution in terms of their contents, and it is necessary to acknowledge that the \u201c1000\u201d TL value deed was converted to \u201c10,000\u201d TL and<\/p>\n
In that case, it is accepted by the court that although the bond is worth TL 1000.00,it has been tampered with and converted to TL 10.000.00, and that the iik’s 169\/a-5.in accordance with article 9.000,00 TL section and fer’is of the follow-up with the partial acceptance of the objection to the debt should be decided to stop, while the provision for the total rejection of the request with written justification is not accurate.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: the partial acceptance of the debtor’s appeals and the court’s decision for the reasons listed above are IIK 366 and Humk’s 428. in accordance with its articles (deterioration), a unanimous decision was made on 14.05.2014 to return the mortar received in advance upon request, with the way of Correction of the decision being clear within 10 days of the notification of the decree.<\/p>\n
From the Local Court decision: \u201dit is understood that the quantity writings were written at one time as\u201d ten thousand ytl \u201dand that the \u201dytl\u201dwritten earlier was changed to \u201dT\u201d instead of \u201d yt\u201d and \u201dI\u201d was changed to ” L ” by the method of going over and completing. \u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Supreme 12. Legal Department Principal No: 2014\/12157 Decision No: 2014\/14423 K. Date: 14.5.2014 After hearing the report prepared by the court judge for the case file and reading and reviewing all documents in the file, the work requirement was discussed and considered after the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,258,256,220,218,257],"yoast_head":"\n