General Assembly of the Law 2017/1422 E. , 2021/321 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
1. At the end of the trial held for the case “determination and registration of vehicle ownership” between the parties, Fethiye 3. dec. 4. The Court of Cassation on appeal of the decision on the acceptance of the case issued by the Court of First Instance by the defendant’s deputy. The examination by the Legal Department was eventually overturned, and the Court resisted the decision to demolish the Private Apartment.
2. The decision to resist was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
3. After reviewing the documents in the file by the General Assembly of the Law, they were discussed as necessary:
I. THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
The Plaintiff Prompt:
4. Plaintiff attorney; that are engaged in the car rental business that is owned by the client and the case of the vehicle rented to a person named Mustafa ozculha out of 35 in a survey on the plate not in time HS 693 brought back, by using the credentials of a client by the attorney to the defendant learned of the case, citing that fake is sold subject to the vehicle the defendant made the determination to cancel the process with the sales transaction is invalid, the record of registration of the vehicle traffic on behalf of the client wanted to give a decision.
The defendant’s answer:
5. The defendant’s deputy; in his first objection to the authority, he claimed that the competent court was the Fethiye courts; in summary in his statements at the hearings; his client had good intentions, there was no way to know the forgery of the sales and documents that took place at the notary, the Kocaeli High Criminal Court asked that the case be dismissed, arguing that his client was in the position of the complainant in the case No. 2012/22 of the main Kocaeli Criminal Court.
ruling:
6. Izmir 4. The decision of the Court of First Instance dated 19.11.2012 and dated 2011/396 E., 2012/510 K. by its numbered decision, it was decided to partially accept the case; the Court of Cassation on the appeal of the defendant’s deputy 4. The Law Department has a certificate dated 21.01.2014 and dated 2013/4434 E., 2014/698 K. the Court dated 08.05.2014 and dated 2014/169 E. Upon stating that the competent court is the First Instance Law Court of Fethiye with the decision to overturn the numbered, 2014/255 K. by its numbered decision, the decision on non-authorization has been made
7. Fethiye 3. The decision of the Court of First Instance dated 29.01.2015 and dated 2014/238 E., 2015/31 K. by his numbered decision; the transferee is the first agent of the defendant’s attorney with Malik fake, but a fake power of attorney by using the absence of any closeness and friendship Mustafa Ozculha sold and out of the case, therefore, the fraudulent nature of attorney is not in a position to know, therefore, the defendant’s good faith can be proven by the plaintiff and the other is in the position of the third person, but not a fake attorney on the grounds that the case with the acceptance of sale of the property had to cancel the transaction for the sale of the vehicle, the vehicle registration and registration on behalf of the plaintiff, it has been decided that the defendant will not be held responsible for the costs of the trial due to his good faith.
The Decision to Spoil the Private Apartment:
8. An appeal was filed by the defendant’s deputy within the time limit against the above-mentioned decision of the court.
9. Supreme Court 4. The Law Department has a certificate dated 16.09.2015 and dated 2015/9610 E., 2015/9907 K. by his numbered decision;
“…1- Appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph should be rejected according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons that are in accordance with the law, in particular, there is no failure to evaluate the evidence.
2- As for other appeals of appeal;
a) The case concerns requests for cancellation and registration of the traffic record with the determination that the sale process is invalid due to the sale of vehicles made with a fake power of attorney. The court decided to accept the case, the verdict was appealed by the defendant.
The plaintiff, HS 693 plate 35 is the owner of the vehicle and at the same time, involved in the car rental business, a person named Mustafa Ozculha the vehicle is leased but that hadn’t returned in time, as a result of his research with the vehicle itself was sold to the defendant by using the credentials of a fake attorney learned that by specifying the vehicle the subject of the case, cancel the registration and sales of traffic with the determination that the transaction is invalid registration is requested.
The defendant argued that the person who appears as the owner of the vehicle in the traffic record received it with a power of attorney for the sale he had given, and the case should be dismissed because of his good faith.
Although the defendant argued that he had good intentions, the court decided to accept the case because the first sale made with a fake power of attorney could not be considered valid.
988 of the Turkish Civil Code. the article provides for the provision that the acquisition of property or limited real rights from the owner of a movable property in good faith over that thing is protected even if the owner does not have the right to make such savings.
Even if a third party has acquired such a property in good faith, its acquisition does not apply if the owner has not entrusted it to someone else and has removed it for a reason such as stealing, extortion, forgetting. It really is Article 989 of the Civil Code. the article contains a clear regulation on this issue. Zilyed, whose property was stolen, lost, or otherwise disposed of against his will, may file a movable property lawsuit against anyone who holds that property within five years.
It seems that the law has made a distinction between the goods entrusted with the protection of good faith and the goods that have been decommissioned from the owner’s hands without his consent. This distinction is based on the following idea; a person who leaves the property in trust to someone else can be considered to have more or less risked and risked the risk that what he has entrusted will be passed on to someone else by alan. However, it cannot be said that anyone who removes a property from their hands without their consent has taken such a risk in advance. Thus, the interest of the third person who acquires a property in good faith is preferred over the interest of the person who entrusts the property; and the interests of anyone who takes away his property without his consent are not sacrificed. Auction bona fide third party without the consent of the owner of a thing from a person that sells stuff like this from the market or if this person is acquired from the original owner of the case both the need to be able to win in the opener against muktesip later return has been linked to a condition: in such cases, bona fide the property of third parties has given the plaintiff who is requesting a refund of the price to acquire, should be returned to him by the original owner. If this condition is not met, the court cannot accept the extradition case filed by the original owner. This is also the direction of the decision No. 2002/643 of the General Assembly of the Law dated 25/09/2002, based on 2002/4-608 and numbered 2002/643.
From the scope of the file; It is understood that the plaintiff who is doing car rental has rented the car belonging to him to the person who introduces himself as Mustafa Özçulha, and the car was sold to the defendant with a fake power of attorney containing information about the plaintiff by the person acting with this person.
Since the plaintiff rented the vehicle belonging to him to the non-plaintiff, the vehicle was taken out of his hands with the consent of the owner. At this point, it is necessary to examine whether the defendant has good intentions. When the criminal investigation related to the incident and the evidence presented to the file are evaluated together, the defendant should be considered as a bona fide since there is no evidence that the defendant wants to harm the plaintiff by acting together with the person who identifies himself as Mustafa Özçulha. However, the court also recognized that the defendant had good faith.
In that case; In order for the plaintiff to win the case for determining the ownership of the vehicle, the defendant must return to him the price he paid as the sale price. If the price is not paid by the court, the rejection of the case should be decided, while the acceptance of the case with a written justification is not correct before the payment occurs. The decision had to be overturned for this reason.
b) The court has decided to cancel the registration of the vehicle subject to the lawsuit on behalf of the defendant and to register it on behalf of the plaintiff. Article 19 of the Law No. 2918. in accordance with the articles of the vd, the traffic registration procedures of vehicles are of an administrative nature. In this regard, it is also not correct to make a registration decision that is compelling the administrative authorities to process the facility in a certain form. For this reason, the decision had to be overturned.” the decision on the grounds has been overturned.
The Decision to Resist: