Do You Know That If The Creditor Does Not Have Clear Consent That The Payments In The Documents Submitted By The Borrower Are Made In Relation To The Checks Subject To Follow-up And If The Check Documents Are Not Written In Which Payment Is Made, The Checks Will Not Be Considered As Paid For Checks?

T.C. SUPREME COURT 12.Legal Department Basis: 2018/371 Verdict: 2018/1405 Decision Date: 15.02.2018 Summary: there is an execution follow-up and check relationship between the parties based on more than one check, and it is not possible to determine whether the statement of the creditor’s attorney is related to the checks subject to follow-up from the response petition given in the negative determination case. The creditor does not have the explicit recommendation that payments on the documents submitted by the debtor are made in relation to the cheques subject to follow-up, nor has an appropriate payment document presented by the debtor with explicit attribution for the cheques subject to follow-up. In that case, the court should decide on the rejection of the debtor’s complaint, while the provision for the acceptance of the complaint and the removal of the Securities lien is inconclusive. (2004 p. K. m. Seventy one) Case: within the period of the court decision with the date and number written above, the examination of the appellant was sent to the office from the file site upon request by the creditor and after hearing the report prepared by the examination Judge for the case file and after reading and examining all the documents in the file,: Decision: in the follow-up of execution without a warrant by means of general lien initiated by the creditor based on 2 cheques, the debtor gave the creditor a cheque for goods, although the goods were not delivered, the cheques were collected by following up, a negative determination lawsuit was filed, the creditor admitted that the debts in the execution files, including this follow-up file,, in spite of the fact that the debt has been paid, it has been stated that it is unlawful to carry out the foreclosure process and that it is requested to be decided to remove the foreclosures of the Securities dated 25.05.2013, the court has not objected to the documents presented by the debtor by the creditor, according to the documents, the debt is tied to the bond, 71/1 of the enforcement and Bankruptcy Code. according to the article, if the debtor proves that the debt and its provisions have been redeemed or that the creditor has given him a respite with a notarized or certified document, the debtor may always ask the execution court for the cancellation or request of the follow-up. A concrete case, the debtor claim as a basis for the redemption, receipt dated 08.09.2012 deed”, dated 03.01.2013 “collection receipt” titled documents submitted in the case of negative clearance, and the creditor’s petition dated 18.04.2013 showed the answer of attorney; deed dated 08.09.2012 of receipt of study; …24. Executive Directorate 2012/10295 E., 2012/10369 E. and 2012/10372 E. non-Case 3 against receivables related to follow-up files numbered. 05.10.2012 it is observed that the bond of TL 56.000.00 with a maturity date is given to the creditor,the bond is given as bail against the debt of the execution files, the Note will be returned when the bond price is paid to the creditor’s attorney at the specified date, and that the execution files will be deducted from the debt of TL 56.000. 00, If this amount In the document titled “collection receipt ” dated 03.01.2013,; a bond of TL 56.000. 00 was issued by … and …in response to the follow-up of the execution files,then 3 checks of TL 7.000. 00 dated 10.01.2013,TL 7.000. 00 dated 10.03.2013, TL 10.000. 00 dated 28.02.2013 were received,as well as TL 15.000. 00 paid on 13.11.2011 and TL 11.000. 00 paid in cash on 11.12.2012 and the bail bond was returned to them, it is observed that these payments can be declared and deducted against the execution files with the above numbers, and that the bottom of this receipt is signed by the creditor’s proxy, on the condition that the debtors pay the required collection fee to the execution office. Again, on which the debtor is based, by the acting creditor … 8. 2013/163 E. Of The Commercial Court Of First Instance 10 of the reply petition submitted to the numbered file. in the clause “the plaintiff has given these checks in exchange for his debt and has paid his debt as a result of the execution follow-up”, it is seen that the statement is present. Although these documents were not contested by the creditor, the creditor said that there was a total payment of TL 50,000, that there were more than one follow-up file, that he did not cover all of the debts and that it was not clear which of the three follow-up files and checks mentioned in the documents were related to the payments, the payment Executive Directorate 2012/10372 E. it is not possible to determine whether the statement of the creditor’s attorney is related to the checks subject to follow-up or not from the response petition given in the negative determination case. The creditor does not have the explicit recommendation that payments on the documents submitted by the debtor are made in relation to the cheques subject to follow-up, nor has an appropriate payment document presented by the debtor with explicit attribution for the cheques subject to follow-up. In that case, the court should decide on the rejection of the debtor’s complaint, while the provision for the acceptance of the complaint and the removal of the Securities lien is inconclusive. Conclusion: the decision of the court with the acceptance of the appeal appeals of the creditor for reasons written above 366 of the ICJ. and Humk’s 428. in accordance with its articles (deterioration), a unanimous decision was made on 15/02/2018 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.