When it comes to negotiable instruments, proof of the debt is possible only through a written document of equal value or by other means.
Evidence presented in the form of an affidavit and constituting conclusive proof; a request for cross-examination
Regarding why the documents in question were obtained or in exchange for which goods
It has been concluded that the claims are baseless and that the first-instance court’s decision to reject the request for examination was erroneous.
is in accordance with the procedure;
Following the objection filed by the parties’ attorneys against the decision rendered by the first-instance court…
The decision rendered at the conclusion of the proceedings in the ongoing negative declaration case between the parties
The 17th Civil Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal
In the Civil Chamber, the plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal within the prescribed time limit against the decision dismissing the appeals on their merits.
Consequently, the case file was reviewed, and the matter was evaluated in detail.
– DECISION –
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff company is engaged in leather production, while the defendant company is involved in the supply of raw hides.
It was noted that a commercial relationship has existed between the parties since 2013, and that the plaintiff issued three promissory notes to the defendant.
Additionally, the plaintiff acted as a guarantor on three other notes, totaling six promissory notes.
It was stated that the promissory notes were to be delivered in exchange for unprocessed leather, but neither the goods were delivered nor an invoice issued.
According to the records, the promissory notes bore the notation “malen” and had been registered.
The plaintiff’s commercial records indicate that the plaintiff sent an official notice to the defendant.
T he notice stated that the promissory note amounts must be paid, or else enforcement proceedings would be initiated.
The plaintiff requests that the case not be initiated and that a ruling be issued stating the plaintiff is not liable.
and ordered the cancellation of the promissory notes.
The defendant’s attorney argued that the plaintiff claims the goods were not delivered and therefore the promissory notes are invalid.
Since the promissory notes bear the phrase “in exchange for an account,” which constitutes the basis for their issuance,
It is argued that the incident must be proven by written evidence,
and the case is requested to be dismissed on the grounds that this cannot be proven through commercial ledgers and records.
As a result of the trial conducted by the court of first instance, in accordance with the principle of the abstract nature of negotiable instruments,
the mere existence of an entry in the plaintiff’s books does not constitute conclusive evidence.
Since the plaintiff failed to present any other conclusive or written evidence, and pursuant to Article 225 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, and despite the plaintiff being reminded of their right to take an oath,
no sworn testimony was sought; therefore, since the claim could not be proven and the plaintiff
was found not to have acted in bad faith, the court dismissed the defendant’s claim for compensation and rendered a judgment.
The case was appealed by the parties’ attorneys.
As a result of the proceedings conducted by the Regional Court of Appeal, pursuant to Article 207/2 of the Turkish Civil Code,
unless otherwise agreed in the contract, the seller and buyer are obligated to fulfill their obligations simultaneously.
It must be accepted that the party making a contrary claim bears the burden of proof; such instruments are generally
issued for the purpose of paying a debt, as this is the reason for their issuance.
The fact that it is stated in writing creates the presumption that the price was paid upon delivery of the goods.
Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff must prove the contrary with conclusive evidence.
With conclusive evidence; when negotiable instruments are involved, proof of the debt is only possible at a specific time.
With a written document of equal value or the sworn testimony of a witness constituting conclusive evidence; the defendant’s
Request for an investigation into the reason for the issuance of the promissory notes in question or whether they were issued in exchange for goods.
Claims regarding whether the promissory notes in question were issued in exchange for goods or for what purpose are baseless; the first-instance court’s decision to reject the request for an investigation is in accordance with procedure; although a provisional remedy decision was issued on November 18, 2015,
it was stated that enforcement proceedings regarding the promissory notes in question would not be initiated if 15% of the claim were secured.
and that if such proceedings had already been initiated, they would be suspended pursuant to this interim injunction
was not implemented; therefore, pursuant to Article 72/4 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law, due to the failure to meet the conditions for compensation,
since the conditions were not met, the appellate court decided to reject the appeals filed by the parties’ attorneys.
An objection was filed against the decision appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Based on the documents in the file, the evidence upon which the decision was based, the persuasive reasoning, and the absence of any misinformation,
The error in the evaluation of the evidence renders all of the plaintiff’s objections invalid.
Objections deemed groundless are dismissed, and a decision in accordance with procedural and substantive law is rendered.
The case file is returned to the court of first instance, and the appeal fee specified below is to be paid.
The appeal fee will be collected from the plaintiff who filed the appeal; this decision was adopted unanimously on November 20, 2019.
19th Civil Chamber, November 20, 2019, Case No. 2018/285, Decision No. 5221