The main and combined lawsuit is related to the claim for the return of gifts, material and moral damages due to the breakdown of the engagement.
1-According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons in accordance with the law and especially the appreciation of the evidence, all of the appellate objections of the appellant defendant, the combined file plaintiff’s attorney regarding the combined file, and other appellate objections other than the following subparagraphs regarding the main file are not relevant.
2-The plaintiff has filed its lawsuit regarding the claim for pecuniary compensation as an indefinite receivable lawsuit. The court, after the expert report, should complete the missing fee in accordance with Article 32 of the Law on Fees and continue the trial if the fee is completed, but it was not deemed correct to establish a written judgment.
3- According to Article 122 of the TMK, if the engagement is terminated for a reason other than marriage, the gifts given by the fiancées to each other, which are not customary, can be requested back. No fault is sought in the lawsuits regarding the recovery of the gifts due to the breakdown of the engagement.
In case the engagement is broken off, the gifts other than the customary gifts are returned in kind, or if they are not available, they are returned in kind, or their equivalent is requested back according to the unjust enrichment rules. The fact that the gifts were given and not returned may be proved by any evidence.
What is meant by customary gifts are items that are worn out and consumed by wearing and using. As a rule, items that are worn out and consumed (such as clothes, shoes, etc.) cannot be returned.
Since the expenses and items subject to financial compensation other than the wedding dress, various fabrics and clothing, invitations and donations mentioned in the expert report are in the possession of the plaintiff and used by the plaintiff, the acceptance of the claim for financial compensation in terms of these expenses and items was not deemed correct.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained in the first subparagraph above, all appellate objections of the defendant joint file plaintiff’s attorney regarding the joint file and the other appellate objections regarding the main file are rejected, and for the reasons explained in the second and third subparagraphs, the judgment is affirmed in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was unanimously decided on 27.12.2017 to return the prepaid appeal fee to the appellant upon request, in accordance with Article 440 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086 with reference to the provisional article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, with the decision correction path being open within a period of 15 days from the notification of the decision.