The Concept of Legal Benefit:
HMK No. 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011.114th. in the article, legal benefit is considered as a condition of litigation. A person whose right has been violated can apply to the court as a plaintiff and request legal protection. However, in order for the plaintiff to claim legal protection, he must have a benefit worthy of protection. The fact that the plaintiff has the right to sue is not enough for him to seek legal protection from the court. The person filing the lawsuit must also have a legal interest in filing the lawsuit. As a rule, it is assumed that there is a legal benefit in civil cases and eda cases. The plaintiff is not obliged to inform and prove that he has a legal interest in such cases. However, in case of doubt, whether there is a legal benefit or not is the subject of an examination. In decertification cases, meanwhile, in the case of a negative determination, the plaintiff must have legal benefit in opening the case. The plaintiff must inform, explain and, if necessary, prove that he has a legal interest in filing a negative detection claim1. If the plaintiff cannot prove that he has a legal interest in filing a negative determination case, the case should be dismissed on the grounds that there is no legal benefit that is a condition of the case.
II. Conditions of Proof in the Case of Detection of Vice
If the plaintiff claims that the debtor’s debt subject to litigation does not exist and asks the court to determine that such a receivable does not exist, then the defendant creditor is obliged to prove the existence of the receivable. If the plaintiff claims that the debtor is invalid due to one of the circumstances that crippled the will you will receive (error, deception, reward), in this case, prove his claim to the taxpayer. If the debtor claims that the debt that he has accepted has expired for some reason, such as payment, then naturally the burden of proof will fall on him in this case. It can be seen that, as a rule, in the case of a negative determination, the burden of proving the existence of a legal relationship is on the defendant/creditor, and the creditor must prove the existence of a legal relationship (debt). If the debtor has accepted the existence of a legal relationship, but has asserted that this legal relationship is a different relationship than the one seen in the deed, this time the burden of proving that the legal relationship is the relationship that he has asserted falls on the plaintiff debtor. Because the plaintiff, the debtor, acknowledges the existence of the deed, but claims that it is not based on a legal relationship, but is based on another legal relationship ; it basically recognizes the existence of a legal relationship.
“Supreme Court 20. HD. , 2019/2494 e. , 2019/3652 K. , T. 27.05.2019 ;”
“The case is part of Article 72 of the IIK. in accordance with the article, there is a vices detection case filed and an assessment must be made in the vices detection case, taking into account that the burden of proof is on the defendant, except for exceptional cases, such as being tied to a foreign exchange bill. If the debtor denies the existence of the debt, in these cases the burden of proof falls on the creditor, although in the case of the defendant. If the borrower claims that the debt that he has accepted has fallen for some reason, such as payment, then, naturally, the burden of proof will fall on him in this case.
It can be seen that, as a rule, in the case of a negative determination, the burden of proving the existence of a legal relationship is on the defendant/creditor, and the creditor must prove the existence of a legal relationship (debt). For these reasons, the court ; considering that the plaintiff has an objection to the defendant /creditor’s follow-up authority and the merits of the debt, first of all, the defendant must prove with the evidence that he has a follow-up authority and that the debt subject to enforcement proceedings arises, while the evidence submitted by the parties must be decided according to the result that will be collected, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff with a misjudgement that the case was decided in writing to reject the case was not considered correct.’’
As a result, as a rule, in the case of a negative determination in accordance with Article 72 of the IIK, the burden of proof is on the defendant creditor and he must prove the existence of the debt. However, if the debt has become invalid for special reasons, that is, due to circumstances that cripple the will, the burden of proof must be replaced and the plaintiff must prove the existence of this situation to the debtor.
Registration of Goods in the Exchange Deed – A Case for Detecting a Vice – The Burden of Proof
The said entry in the foreign exchange note indicates that the bond is issued in exchange for the delivered goods. In other words, the seller (the person who issued the bond) says that I have delivered the goods and I am fulfilling my obligation to pay the price equivalent to the goods with this bond.
Supreme
General Assembly of Law
Mainly No:2013/2402
“text of jurisprudence”
“At the end of the trial held due to the “deciphering” case between the parties; Denizli 3.The day of 01.02.2012 issued by the Magistrate’s Court on the acceptance of the case and E:2010/1442,
K:2012/92 upon the request of the deputies of the parties to examine the decision No. 19, the Supreme Court of Cassation.The date of 29.01.2013 of the Legal Department and E:2012/14275, K:2013/1601 with the addition of;
(…The acting plaintiffs are non-plaintiffs whose clients have relatives from the defendant company N..A..’either as a gift against invoice dated 06.04.2010 3.377,75 TL total cost for themselves, they also agreed to buy some stuff from 6.000 TL liking defendant in the amount of goods given to the defendant, and be subject to monitoring stock worth 6.000 TL, goods received as a gift in N. 06.04.2010.A.. that they were delivered to the, but their client refused to receive the goods they wanted to receive for them, informing the defendant, 6.000 TL worth the deed in the hands of the respondent, though the debts of their clients 3.377 it is the price of goods sold,75-TL, return on equity and the statement that he would return this debt repayments over stock they weren’t on their clients, they received the gift of the part of the defendant to 1,900 TL debts arising from the goods they are paid back 1.477,7-TL debt remained, although the defendant based on years of 4.100 6.000 TL-TL liens outstanding balance has been received and Denizli remained as the decision of 7.That the Enforcement Directorate initiated a follow-up from the 2010/9116 follow-up file, stating that his clients had only TL 1,477.75 in debts due to the promissory note and follow-up, he requested and sued to determine that they had no debts to the defendant from the requested part of TL 2,622.25 and to decide on a 40% bad faith compensation against the defendant.
Defendant’s Attorney, his client invoice dated 18.05.2010 money selling goods to the plaintiffs, accordingly, the plaintiffs dated 15.07.2010 dated 18.05.2010 Editing payment of their debts by organizing the stock with a price 1.900 6.000 TL-TL’ s they pay, but the rest 4.100 TL’ s non-payment due to the enforcement proceedings initiated in respect of any payment or the amount owed plaintiffs claim that they are not written to prove that the goods have been returned with evidence, the burden of proof on the plaintiff, because any “malen” record found, stating that the goods were delivered first and then the deed was issued, he demanded that the case be dismissed and a 40% compensation for malice be decided.
As a result of the trial made by the court, the subject of the plaintiff’s case dated 15.07.2010 payment bonds as principal receivables in the following file 6.000 TL worth of debt due 1.477,75 TL (2.622,25-TL upon determination that does not have debt, because it cannot be proved that the respondent be declared the twisted kotuniyet place to compensation by the court decided it wasn’t, terms of First Instance was appealed by both parties.
The case is related to the determination that there is no debt due to the exchange note, and there is a “malen” record on the bond. This circumstance constitutes a presumption that the goods have been delivered, and the contrary must be proved in writing by the claimant. It was not considered correct to establish a provision in writing on the grounds that the defendant creditor could not prove that the goods were delivered by making a mistake in determining the burden of proof by the court….”
The subject of the lawsuit is the plaintiff … the discoverer, the defendant … the beneficiary on the bond, and there is a “malen” record as the reason for the termination.
A bond is a promissory note containing an independent debt offering, and if there is a price record in the promissory note, the burden of proof belongs to the party who argues that the record is otherwise. In a concrete case, in the face of the statements of both parties that the bond is not equivalent to the goods, it is mandatory to accept that the deed has been executed by both parties, and in this case, TMK 6. and HMK’s 191. in accordance with the article, it should be accepted that the general rule that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff debtor of the promissory note will not change and that the plaintiff must prove that the promissory note is free of charge.
In accordance with the rule of proof by counter-promissory note per year, the plaintiff-debtor must prove by written evidence that the bond being pursued is free of charge. It is not clear from the text of the deed (bond) that was subject to follow-up, nor did the plaintiffs submit any written evidence to the file that would legally prove this claim. Since the plaintiffs are not the third party to the deed, since the plaintiff is not the third party, the plaintiff must prove the claim of non-payment not with a witness, but with written evidence in the manner prescribed by the procedure, since the plaintiffs are the depositor and guarantor of the deed (bond) and the defendant is the beneficiary. Since the subject of the lawsuit has the phrase “malen” in the bond, it has been admitted by the debtor that the goods were delivered in such a bond. The creditor has no obligation to prove that he has delivered. In other words, contrary to the written confession, the debtor is obliged to prove that the goods have not been delivered.
In this case, it is necessary to accept that the bond subject to dispute and follow-up is legally valid. Then, since the plaintiff-debtor claims that the bond is free of charge, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs must prove this claim with written evidence.
