3. Legal Department 2020/8172 E. , 2021/2772 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT : …. DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE …LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Between the parties before the court of first instance the case for the rejection of the withdrawal of the appeal about the decision made by the Regional Justice Court of Appeal as a result of the review; the decision of the appeal for denial of the appeal by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s attorney by the length of the appeal hearing; designated as plaintiff on the day of the trial attorney 16/03/2021 Av. … he’s here. An open hearing was started, and after listening to the oral statements of the attorney present, it was considered appropriate to leave it until 14.00 to examine the work and make a decision, at a certain time, all the papers in the file were read, the statements of the Investigating Judge were listened to and considered necessary:
The Decision Of The Supreme Court
Real estate broker and a real estate dealer from the case of the plaintiff and the defendant on behalf of the president, the person cooperative Yilmaz buy and sell real estate in conformity with the contract signed between Health and commissions, subject to the agreement of the parties agreed to buy or sell immovable floor against the defendant’s estate at the current market price of the recipient 3% over responsibility to pay a commission fee, however, you didn’t pay this price, for the purpose of unfair debt collection proceeding initiated objected on the grounds that the cancellation of the objection with the executive executive compensation to be dominated wanted to deny.
The defendant requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the chairman of the cooperative, whose signature is on the contract, does not have the authority to borrow the cooperative alone.
The court decided to dismiss the case, and the plaintiff appealed against the decision.
… District Court of Justice 17. According to the Law Department, the scope of the file, as of the state of the evidence, … 7. HMK 353/1-b of the application of the plaintiff’s attorney in accordance with the fact that there is no violation of the law in terms of procedural and substantive aspects in terms of the court’s case and legal assessment in the Consumer Court’s decision No. 12/10/2017, based on 2016/629, decision No. 2017/635 of HMK 353/1-B.in accordance with Article 1, it was decided to reject it on the basis of the merits, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff.
1- The case is a case of cancellation of an appeal against enforcement proceedings initiated for the purpose of collecting the fee arising from the brokerage contract. Although the plaintiff claims that the claim is invalid because the contract is one-signed, it is contrary to the rules of good faith, the plaintiff’s follow-up is long after the contract, and the defendant has the right to assert the invalidity of the contract in his objection to the follow-up and in his response to the case. When he came across the case and the case, he asserted this def’i in his hand. In addition, the amount payable to the plaintiff in the contract is also not clear. Brokerage contracts must be made in writing, and the fee to be paid must also be shown in the contract. For these reasons, it has been decided to reject the application for appeal on the basis that ”the right cannot be claimed based on the contract that is invalid”.
3 of the Law on Consumer Protection No. 6502 in force at the time of the opening of the case. according to the article, Consumer, any natural or legal person, who act for commercial or professional purposes, the Consumer process; in markets for goods or services, including public entities, commercial or professional purposes, or acting for or on behalf established between natural or legal persons who act on her behalf and consumers, work, transportation, brokerage, insurance, attorneys, and similar contractual and legal contracts of all kinds, including banking refers to the process. In order for a legal transaction to be considered a consumer transaction, it must comply with the definitions mentioned above. The defendant is a residential building cooperative and there is no consumer qualification. In addition, if the plaintiff is a real estate broker, since the cooperative is not a consumer, it dec understood that the relationship between the parties falls outside the scope of Law 6502, the general courts are responsible for handling the case. The inclusion of brokerage contract relations within the scope of the consumer law does not lead to the fact that a case in which one of the parties is not a consumer will be heard in the consumer court. The issue of duty is related to public order and must be considered by the court at all stages, and there can be no vested right in the issue of duty. In this case, the court is obliged to issue a decision of dismissal with a bet, since the court of first instance is in charge, while the provision of the case by being heard in the consumer court is contrary to the procedure and law and is the reason for overturning it.
2-According to the reason for the violation, the plaintiff’s appeals have not yet been considered necessary to be examined.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described in paragraph 1 above, the first instance court rejected the appeal against the decision … District Court of Justice 17. 26/06/2019 day of the Legal Department 2018/1471 Based on the abolition of Decision No. 2019/1324 of the Decision … 7. 2016/629 Based on the VIOLATION of the Consumer Court’s Decision No. 2017/635, for the reasons described in paragraph 2, the plaintiff’s other appeals do not have room to be examined at this stage, the $ 3,050.00 Supreme Court hearing attorney fee is taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, the file is sent to the court of first instance, a sample of the decision … to the District Court of Justice, unanimously on 16/03/2021 the decision has been made.