T.C. SUPREME COURT DECISION
Date of Decision: 14.07.2016
THE CASE ARISING FROM THE WORK CONTRACT – AS A RESULT OF AN ACCOUNT ERROR, IT WAS DECIDED TO COLLECT THE FEE FROM THE DEFENDANT – THE REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF THE DECISION IN THIS DIRECTION WAS CONSIDERED ON THE SPOT AND THE CORRECTION OF THE MATERIAL ERROR WAS ACCEPTED
SUMMARY: A Local Court approved the decision of duties on the part of the case that the Supreme Court accepted under the law of mortar is required to be taken, including how to contact 45.063, $ 70 cash received from fees 11.359 writ of ratification, £ 15 in advance 33.704 fee after deduction of the appeals,a defendant who appeals from the writ of 55 TL ratification of fees should be made when the decision to be taken 56.422 the result of miscalculation,85 TL fees from the defendant to the collection in these times where the decision is made that has been performed in this direction was observed and understood in the adoption of the decision for the correction of a material error correction is approved.
(6098 P. K. m. 470)
Case and Decision: Plaintiff .. Architecture Construction Tourism Co., Ltd. and tic. Ltd. Şti. and the defendant .. San Food Products. and tic. A.Sh. due to the lawsuit between the Commercial Court of First Instance issued by Dec.. days and .. our Apartment, which has approved the numbered provision.. days and .. it was understood that the decision was requested to be corrected by the defendant’s deputy against the numbered decree and the decision was granted within the time limit of the correction petition, but the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
The case is related to the cancellation of the appeal and the request for the continuation of the follow-up to the unsolicited enforcement request made for the collection of the balance work fee receivable arising from the work contract. The court issued a decision on the partial acceptance of the case by our Department on the appeal of the deputies of the parties.. day.. Against the decision of approval No. 1, the defendant requested correction of the decision within the time limit of the proxy.
1-According to the articles in the file, the reasons specified in the court decision and adopted by the Supreme Court, the defendant’s attorney’s requests for correction of other decisions that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph were not seen on the spot, and their rejection was required.
2-Duties on the part of the case accepted the decision of the local court that approved the Supreme Court, including how to contact the mortar is required to be taken under the law of 45.063, $ 70 cash received from fees 11.359 writ of ratification, £ 15 in advance 33.704 fee after deduction of the appeals,a defendant who appeals from the writ of 55 TL ratification of fees should be made when the decision to be taken 56.422 the result of miscalculation,85 TL fees from the defendant to the collection in these times where the decision is made that has been performed in this direction was observed and understood in the adoption of the decision for the correction of a material error correction is approved.
Conclusion: The above 1. refusal of the defendant’s requests for correction of other decisions for the reasons described in paragraph, 2. 45.063,70 TL ilam fee + 11.359, 15 TL upfront fee = 56.422,85 TL balance fee in the section of the approval statement of our apartment upon acceptance in accordance with the bent 45.063,70 TL ilam fee under the title of the defendant instead of removing the balance sheet in the form of the fee of 45.063,70 TL – 11.359,15 TL advance fee = 33.704,55 TL balance fee should be written and the number “56.422,85 TL”, which comes after the word balance in the sixth line of the decision section of our Apartment, should be removed from the decision text and replaced with the number “33.704,55 TL” and CORRECTED the material error in the approval of our apartment in this way, the decision correction advance fee paid by the one who wants to correct the decision on request it was unanimously decided to return it to the defendant on 14.07.2016. (¤¤)
Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program