TC
Supreme
law office
ORIGINAL NO.: 2016/3357
DECISION NO: 2016/13899
DECISION DATE: 24.10.2016
FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRACKING, CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE IS A COLLATERAL, PROOF OBLIGATION AND EVIDENCE STATUS
6100/m.222/5
6102/m.64
SUMMARY : The case is related to the request for foul play detection.
The plaintiff requested a negative determination by asserting that the promissory note in question was issued for collateral purposes due to the follow-up related to the foreign exchange bill initiated against him. The plaintiff has to prove these claims with a written document. Since the lawsuit petition is not based solely on the defendant’s notebooks as evidence, the fact that the defendant has not submitted his notebook does not constitute a presumption that the case has been proven by being interpreted in favor of the plaintiff. The court’s decision to ”accept the case on the grounds that it proves the plaintiff’s claim due to the defendant’s refusal to submit his notebooks” had to be overturned, and the plaintiff’s evidence based on a written document must be evaluated and decided according to the result.
INCIDENT: At the end of the trial of the Decriminalization case between the parties, the file was examined by the plaintiff’s attorney within the time period for reasons written in the justification of the decision to dismiss the case, the file was examined, discussed and deemed necessary:
decision
The plaintiff’s lawyer filed a lawsuit in the criminal court claiming that by pursuing enforcement proceedings against his client, who is the subject of prosecution, he continues to demand that the “collateral” for the portion of the capital he gave as collateral, which was cut with scissors if added later to the due date, is again owed to his client, claiming that he owes money.
The defendant’s attorney requested that the case be dismissed, arguing that the plaintiff must prove by written evidence that he is not indebted according to the year in which the debt offer is included.
By the court, 222/5 of the CCP numbered 6100. in accordance with Article 64 of the Turkish Commercial Code numbered 6102. in accordance with the article, due to the fact that the defendant is a merchant, the commercial ledgers have not been submitted, although the defendant has been given a full time to submit his commercial ledgers. According to the article, it was decided to accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff should clearly show the debt and receivable relations in his books, the defendant refrained from presenting his books, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
The plaintiff requested a negative determination by asserting that the promissory note in question was issued as collateral due to the follow-up related to the foreign exchange bill initiated against him. The plaintiff has to prove these claims with a written document. Since the lawsuit petition is not based solely on the defendant’s notebooks as evidence, the defendant’s failure to submit his notebook does not constitute a presumption that the case has been proven by interpreting it in favor of the plaintiff. According to the principle explained above, the court requested the plaintiff to evaluate the evidence based on a written document and evaluate it according to the result, and required that the decision to be made in writing be overturned.
CONCLUSION :
For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 24.10.2016 to OVERTURN the judgment in favor of the defendant and to refund the advance payment if requested.