T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
9. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2022\/17003 E., 2023\/341 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
\u0130NCELENEN KARARIN
\nMAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 5. Hukuk Dairesi
\nSAYISI : 2022\/268 E., 2022\/3322 K.
\nKARAR : \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddi
\n\u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 : … 46. … Mahkemesi
\nSAYISI : 2021\/172 E., 2021\/281 K.<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Karar\u0131n daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurunun esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten ve Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. DAVA
\nDavac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; davac\u0131n\u0131n … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini … 17. Noterli\u011finin 24.05.2019 tarihli ihtarnamesi ile 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 … Kanunu’nun (4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 24 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin (II) numaral\u0131 bendinin (e) alt bendine g\u00f6re \u00fccretinin \u00f6denmemesi sebebiyle hakl\u0131 nedenle feshetti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti ve fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. CEVAP
\nDaval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; s\u00fcreklilik arz etmeyen, k\u0131sa s\u00fcreli gecikmelerin i\u015f\u00e7iye hakl\u0131 nedenle fesih hakk\u0131 verilmeyece\u011fi hususunun Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131 ile belirlendi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n izin \u00fccretinin tamam\u0131n\u0131n 30.05.2019 tarihinde \u00f6dendi\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n proje y\u00f6neticisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kendi mesaisini kendisinin belirledi\u011fini, daval\u0131 \u015eirkette fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kald\u0131 ki fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yap\u0131lsa dahi taraflar aras\u0131ndaki … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin “\u00dccret” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 5 inci maddesine g\u00f6re 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde yap\u0131lan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00fccretine d\u00e2hil oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131n\u0131n … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 6.3. maddesine g\u00f6re i\u015fverenin yaz\u0131l\u0131 talimat\u0131 \u00fczerine fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma ve … bayram genel tatil g\u00fcnlerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapabilece\u011fini savunarak davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince, davac\u0131n\u0131n … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 nedenle feshetti\u011fi, Nisan 2019 d\u00f6nemine ait \u00fccretin … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshinden 5 g\u00fcn sonra 28.05.2019 tarihinde \u00f6dendi\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n daha \u00f6nceki aylara ili\u015fkin \u00fccretlerinin ay\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131nda \u00f6dendi\u011fi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Nisan ay\u0131 \u00fccretinin Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 20 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcreden sonra \u00f6denmesi nedeniyle davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na hak kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n 46 g\u00fcnl\u00fck bakiye izin s\u00fcresinin oldu\u011fu, fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin de ispatlanmamas\u0131 nedeniyle reddi gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130ST\u0130NAF
\nA. \u0130stinaf Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 vekili istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. \u0130stinaf Sebepleri
\nDaval\u0131 vekili istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde; davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00fccretinin \u00f6denmesinde sadece bir kereye mahsus bir gecikme ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n bu gecikmeyi bahane ederek yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 feshin hakl\u0131 fesih olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yerle\u015fik Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131yla s\u00fcreklilik arz etmeyen, k\u0131sa s\u00fcreli gecikmelerin i\u015f\u00e7iye hakl\u0131 nedenle fesih hakk\u0131 vermeyece\u011finin kabul edildi\u011fini, kanunun i\u015f\u00e7iye \u00fccretinin 20 g\u00fcn gecikmesi h\u00e2linde, fesih de\u011fil ancak … g\u00f6rme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden ka\u00e7\u0131nma hakk\u0131 verdi\u011fini, daval\u0131 \u015eirketin \u00fclke \u00e7ap\u0131nda ya\u015fanan ekonomik daralma nedeniyle kamu kurumlar\u0131 ve \u00f6zel firmalardan alacaklar\u0131n\u0131 tahsil edemedi\u011fini, bu nedenle 2019 y\u0131l\u0131n\u0131n Nisan ay\u0131na ait \u00fccretlerin \u00f6denmesinde bir kereye mahsus bir gecikme ya\u015fand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlara hem s\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak hem de g\u00f6nderilen e-posta ile durumun a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 \u015eirketin 27.05.2019 tarihinde alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 tahsil eder etmez ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn derh\u00e2l \u00fccretleri yat\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hatta bir sonraki ay\u0131n \u00fccretini de olas\u0131 ma\u011fduriyetleri gidermek i\u00e7in vaktinden \u00f6nce yat\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n ihtarnamesinin, daval\u0131 \u015eirkete \u00fccretlerin \u00f6dendi\u011fi g\u00fcn tebli\u011f edildi\u011fini, davac\u0131, \u00fccretinin ge\u00e7 \u00f6denmesi nedeniyle de\u011fil, daval\u0131 \u015eirkette yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015fi kendi kuraca\u011f\u0131 ekiple kendi ad\u0131na yapmak i\u00e7in istifa etti\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131demine g\u00f6re 370 g\u00fcn izne hak kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dosyada mevcut izin formlar\u0131na g\u00f6re 378 g\u00fcn y\u0131ll\u0131k izin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca kendisine … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi sonunda 20 g\u00fcnl\u00fck izin \u00fccreti \u00f6dendi\u011fini, kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve \u00fccretini ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 izinlerin toplam\u0131 398 g\u00fcn olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen davac\u0131 lehine 46 g\u00fcnl\u00fck y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini, bu konuda bilirki\u015fi raporuna yapt\u0131klar\u0131 itirazlar\u0131n Mahkemece dikkate al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e ve Sonu\u00e7<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile; taraflar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u00fccretin \u00f6denme zaman\u0131 ile ilgili h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, banka kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n ayl\u0131k \u00fccretinin ay\u0131n ilk haftas\u0131 i\u00e7inde \u00f6dendi\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n 2019 y\u0131l\u0131 Nisan ay\u0131na ili\u015fkin \u00fccret \u00f6demesinin … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshedildi\u011fi 27.05.2019 tarihinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, Nisan ay\u0131 \u00fccretinin ge\u00e7 \u00f6denmesi nedeniyle davac\u0131n\u0131n … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshinde hakl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a dosyaya sunulan y\u0131ll\u0131k izin formlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi neticesinde davac\u0131ya kulland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ispat edilemeyen bakiye 46 g\u00fcn y\u0131ll\u0131k izninin oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n da yerinde oldu\u011fu tespiti gerek\u00e7esiyle daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. TEMY\u0130Z
\nA. Temyiz Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Temyiz Sebepleri
\nDaval\u0131 vekilince temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde; 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’da i\u015f\u00e7inin hakl\u0131 nedenle fesih sebeplerinin s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 say\u0131da belirlendi\u011fi ve bu nedenler aras\u0131nda, i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00fccretinin ge\u00e7 \u00f6denmesi h\u00e2linin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yerle\u015fik Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131 ile s\u00fcreklilik arz etmeyen, k\u0131sa s\u00fcreli gecikmelerin i\u015f\u00e7iye hakl\u0131 nedenle fesih hakk\u0131 vermeyece\u011fi, bu durumun d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k arzetti\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n as\u0131l niyetinin ayn\u0131 anda i\u015ften ayr\u0131lan 5 ki\u015fiyle birlikte ekip kurarak m\u00fcvekkili \u015eirketin m\u00fc\u015fterileriyle do\u011frudan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmak oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ile y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken aksi y\u00f6nde karar verilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e<\/p>\n
1. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ve Hukuki Nitelendirme
\nUyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, i\u015f\u00e7i taraf\u0131ndan hakl\u0131 fesih iddias\u0131n\u0131n ispat\u0131 ile k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ve y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130lgili Hukuk
\n6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun (6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 369 uncu maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 ile 370 ve 371 inci maddeleri, 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 24, 32, 59 ve 120 nci maddeleri, m\u00fclga 1475 say\u0131l\u0131 … Kanunu’nun 14 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesi.<\/p>\n
3. De\u011ferlendirme<\/p>\n
1. B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemelerinin nihai kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 371 inci maddesinde yer alan sebeplerden birinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. Temyizen incelenen karar, taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131na, dayand\u0131klar\u0131 belgelere, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa uygulanmas\u0131 gereken hukuk kurallar\u0131 ile hukuki ili\u015fkinin nitelendirilmesine, dava \u015fartlar\u0131na, yarg\u0131lama ve ispat kurallar\u0131 ile kararda belirtilen gerek\u00e7elere g\u00f6re usul ve kanuna uygun olup daval\u0131 vekilince temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen nedenler karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek nitelikte g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VI. KARAR<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeple;<\/p>\n
Temyiz olunan B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 370 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ONANMASINA,<\/p>\n
A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 temyiz giderinin temyiz edene y\u00fckletilmesine,<\/p>\n
Dosyan\u0131n \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine,<\/p>\n
12.01.2023 tarihinde oy birli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n
2020\/59 E., 2022\/109 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130\u015f Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201ci\u015f\u00e7ilik alaca\u011f\u0131\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, Gaziantep 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin karar davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 22. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 \u0130stemi:
\n4. Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin 2007 y\u0131l\u0131 Ocak ay\u0131ndan 2013 y\u0131l\u0131 Kas\u0131m ay\u0131na kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n devam etti\u011fini, daval\u0131lar aras\u0131nda as\u0131l i\u015fveren-alt i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi bulundu\u011funu, daval\u0131 D. \u00d6zel G\u00fcvenlik Hizmetleri Ltd. \u015eti.\u2019nin m\u00fcvekkilinin \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 son alt i\u015fveren oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin 2010 y\u0131l\u0131 May\u0131s ay\u0131na kadar fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde \u00fccretinin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, 2008 ve 2010 y\u0131llar\u0131na ait y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccretinin de \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, 2012 y\u0131l\u0131nda ise 14 g\u00fcn y\u0131ll\u0131k izin kulland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu\u2019nun 24\/II-e maddesinde \u201c\u0130\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan i\u015f\u00e7inin \u00fccreti kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmleri veya s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u015fartlar\u0131na uygun olarak hesap edilmez veya \u00f6denmezse\u201d i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 nedenle feshedebilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin 08.11.2013 tarihli ihtarname ile i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 nedenle feshetti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ile fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131:
\n5. Daval\u0131 … (Bakanl\u0131k\/\u0130dare) vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin i\u015fveren s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava konusu alacaklar\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f nedeninin Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kurumu (SGK)\u2019ya sorulmas\u0131n\u0131, bu h\u00e2liyle k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 isteminin yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm \u00fccretlerinin usul\u00fcne uygun \u015fekilde kendi ad\u0131na olan hesaba yat\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ve fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131na hak kazanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. Daval\u0131 D. \u00d6zel G\u00fcvenlik Hizmetleri Ltd. \u015eti.; davaya cevap vermemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme Karar\u0131:
\n7. Gaziantep 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinin 27.11.2015 tarihli ve 2013\/840 E., 2015\/429 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti \u00f6denmedi\u011finden i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 feshetti\u011fini belirtti\u011fi, ancak toplanan deliller do\u011frultusunda al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edildi\u011fi, ba\u015fkaca dava konusu edilen alacak kalemi de olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan feshin hakl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131:
\n8. Gaziantep 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
9. Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 22. Hukuk Dairesinin 21.01.2019 tarihli ve 2017\/19182 E., 2019\/1503 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; \u201c\u2026Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 nedenle feshedip feshetmedi\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda; davac\u0131 i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini 08.11.2013 tarihli ihtarname ile hakl\u0131 nedenle feshetti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ile fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir. Her ne kadar Mahkemece davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccret alaca\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 nedenle feshetmedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ile fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccret alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f ise de feshin hakl\u0131 nedene dayan\u0131p dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rma h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmaya yeterli de\u011fildir. Zira davac\u0131 ihtarnamesinde sigortal\u0131 olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 01.01.2007 tarihinden itibaren i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini feshetti\u011fi tarihe kadar y\u0131ll\u0131k izin haklar\u0131n\u0131n eksik \u00f6dendi\u011fini veya hi\u00e7 \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, fazla mesai \u00fccreti alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n hi\u00e7 \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, babal\u0131k izni kulland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6nceki y\u0131llarda ayl\u0131k maa\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7 \u00f6dendi\u011fini ve yine ba\u015fkaca yasal hak ve alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n ya eksik ya da ge\u00e7 \u00f6dendi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n ihtarnamesinde belirtilen di\u011fer fesih sebepleri kapsam\u0131nda ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lma yap\u0131lmas\u0131, gerekirse rapor al\u0131narak olu\u015facak sonuca g\u00f6re i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin hakl\u0131 nedenle feshedilip feshedilmedi\u011fi konusunda karar verilmesi gerekirken Mahkemece eksik inceleme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi hatal\u0131 olup bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir\u2026\u201d gerek\u00e7esiyle karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131:
\n10. Gaziantep 4. \u0130\u015f Mahkemesinin 29.03.2019 tarihli ve 2019\/21 E., 2019\/207 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; davac\u0131n\u0131n fesih ihtarnamesindeki fesih sebeplerinden sadece fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dava konusu yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve buna g\u00f6re k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fi, ba\u015fkaca dava konusu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f i\u015f\u00e7ilik alaca\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7inin fesih i\u00e7in ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin \u00f6denmemesinin \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 24\/II-e maddesi uyar\u0131nca davac\u0131ya hakl\u0131 fesih imk\u00e2n\u0131 verdi\u011fi ancak bozma \u00f6ncesi yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada dinlenen davac\u0131 tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7 vardiya h\u00e2linde 8 saat \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 beyan ettikleri, \u00fc\u00e7 vardiyal\u0131 yap\u0131lan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalarda fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yap\u0131lmas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ispat y\u00fck\u00fc \u00fczerinde olan davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma iddias\u0131n\u0131n ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n talep etti\u011fi fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n reddedildi\u011fi ve bu alaca\u011fa ili\u015fkin bir bozman\u0131n da s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n fesih bildiriminde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u0131ll\u0131k izin haklar\u0131n\u0131n eksik \u00f6dendi\u011fi veya hi\u00e7 \u00f6denmedi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n hakl\u0131 fesih sebebi olamayaca\u011f\u0131, zira y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccretinin fesihle muaccel h\u00e2le gelen bir alacak oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n fesih tarihi olan 08.11.2013 tarihinden \u00e7ok \u00f6nce 17.08.2010 tarihinde baba oldu\u011fu n\u00fcfus kay\u0131t \u00f6rne\u011finden anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan babal\u0131k izninin kulland\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n da hakl\u0131 fesih sebebi olamayaca\u011f\u0131, \u00f6nceki y\u0131llarda ayl\u0131k \u00fccretlerinin ge\u00e7 \u00f6denmesi iddias\u0131n\u0131n da fesih hakk\u0131 alt\u0131 i\u015fg\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcrede kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu itibarla hakl\u0131 fesih sebepleri bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na hak kazanamayaca\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde talep etmedi\u011fi \u201cy\u0131ll\u0131k izin haklar\u0131n\u0131n eksik \u00f6dendi\u011fi veya hi\u00e7 \u00f6denmedi\u011fi, babal\u0131k izninin kulland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6nceki y\u0131llarda ayl\u0131k \u00fccretlerin ge\u00e7 \u00f6dendi\u011fi ve yine ba\u015fkaca bilumum yasal hak ve alacaklar\u0131n ya eksik ya da ge\u00e7 \u00f6dendi\u011fi\u201d \u015feklindeki di\u011fer fesih sebepleri olarak say\u0131lan hususlarda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun (HMK) 26. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesine de ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131, zira dava dilek\u00e7esinin netice ve talep b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde davac\u0131ya 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 24\/II-e maddesi kapsam\u0131nda hakl\u0131 fesih imk\u00e2n\u0131 verecek fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ba\u015fkaca bir alacak talebi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:
\n11. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK
\n12. Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; davac\u0131n\u0131n fesih ihtarnamesindeki fesih sebeplerinden sadece fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dava konusu yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yarg\u0131lama sonucunda fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 isteminin de yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi eldeki davada, k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 talebinin yerinde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda davac\u0131n\u0131n 08.11.2013 tarihli fesih ihtarnamesinde bahsetti\u011fi di\u011fer fesih sebepleri hakk\u0131nda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, di\u011fer fesih sebepleri olarak say\u0131lan hususlarda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun (HMK) 26. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen \u201cTaleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesi\u201dne ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturup olu\u015fturmayaca\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. \u00d6N SORUN
\n13. Hukuk Genel Kurulunda yap\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler s\u0131ras\u0131nda i\u015fin esas\u0131na ge\u00e7ilmeden \u00f6nce direnme ad\u0131 alt\u0131nda verilen karar\u0131n yeni h\u00fck\u00fcm niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131; buradan var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re temyiz incelemesinin Hukuk Genel Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan m\u0131 yoksa \u00d6zel Dairece mi yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi \u00f6n sorun olarak tart\u0131\u015f\u0131l\u0131p de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. GEREK\u00c7E
\n14. Direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in mahkeme bozmadan esinlenerek yeni herhangi bir delil toplamadan \u00f6nceki deliller \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde karar vermeli; gerek\u00e7esini \u00f6nceki karar\u0131na g\u00f6re geni\u015fletebilirse de de\u011fi\u015ftirmemelidir.<\/p>\n
15. Mahkemenin yeni bir bilgi, belge ve delile dayanarak veya bozmadan esinlenip gerek\u00e7esini de\u011fi\u015ftirerek veya daha \u00f6nce \u00fczerinde durmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir hususu bozmada i\u015faret olunan \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirerek, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla da ilk karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 hukuk\u00ee olguyu de\u011fi\u015ftirerek karar vermi\u015f olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemez.<\/p>\n
16. \u0130stikrar kazanm\u0131\u015f Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131na g\u00f6re; mahkemece direnme karar\u0131 verilse dahi bozma karar\u0131nda tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken hususlar\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmak, bozma sonras\u0131 yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rma, inceleme veya toplanan yeni delillere dayanmak, \u00f6nceki kararda yer almayan ve \u00d6zel Daire denetiminden ge\u00e7memi\u015f olan yeni ve de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7e ile h\u00fck\u00fcm kurmak suretiyle verilen karar direnme karar\u0131 olmay\u0131p, bozmaya eylemli uyma sonucunda verilen yeni h\u00fck\u00fcm olarak kabul edilir.<\/p>\n
17. Somut olayda, mahkemece, fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretlerinin \u00f6denmemesi sebebiyle i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini hakl\u0131 nedenle feshetti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcren davac\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucu toplanan delillere g\u00f6re fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispat edemedi\u011fi, buna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak da feshin hakl\u0131 nedene dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi, davac\u0131 vekilinin temyizi \u00fczerine karar\u0131n \u00d6zel Dairece, fesih ihtarnamesinde belirtilen di\u011fer fesih sebepleri kapsam\u0131nda inceleme ve ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle bozma karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
18. Mahkemece bozma sonras\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada, davac\u0131n\u0131n fesih ihtarnamesindeki fesih sebeplerinden sadece fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dava konusu yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve buna g\u00f6re k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fi, ba\u015fkaca dava konusu yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f i\u015f\u00e7ilik alaca\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n fesih sebebi olarak ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131ndan fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin \u00f6denmemesinin \u0130\u015f Kanunu’nun 24\/II-e maddesi uyar\u0131nca davac\u0131ya hakl\u0131 fesih imk\u00e2n\u0131 verdi\u011fi ancak bozma \u00f6ncesi yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispat edemedi\u011finden reddine karar verildi\u011fi ve bu alaca\u011fa ili\u015fkin bir bozman\u0131n da s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n fesih bildiriminde ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc y\u0131ll\u0131k izin haklar\u0131n\u0131n eksik \u00f6dendi\u011fi veya hi\u00e7 \u00f6denmedi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccretinin fesihle muaccel h\u00e2le gelen bir alacak oldu\u011fundan hakl\u0131 fesih sebebi olamayaca\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n fesih tarihi olan 08.11.2013 tarihinden \u00e7ok \u00f6nce 17.08.2010 tarihinde baba oldu\u011fu n\u00fcfus kay\u0131t \u00f6rne\u011finden anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan babal\u0131k izninin kulland\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131n\u0131n da hakl\u0131 fesih sebebi olamayaca\u011f\u0131, \u00f6nceki y\u0131llarda ayl\u0131k \u00fccretlerinin ge\u00e7 \u00f6denmesi iddias\u0131n\u0131n da fesih hakk\u0131 alt\u0131 i\u015fg\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcrede kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hakl\u0131 fesih sebepleri bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na hak kazanamayaca\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esinde talep etmedi\u011fi \u201cy\u0131ll\u0131k izin haklar\u0131n\u0131n eksik \u00f6dendi\u011fi veya hi\u00e7 \u00f6denmedi\u011fi, babal\u0131k izninin kulland\u0131r\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6nceki y\u0131llarda ayl\u0131k \u00fccretlerin ge\u00e7 \u00f6dendi\u011fi ve yine ba\u015fkaca bilumum yasal hak ve alacaklar\u0131n ya eksik ya da ge\u00e7 \u00f6dendi\u011fi\u201d \u015feklindeki di\u011fer fesih sebepleri olarak say\u0131lan hususlarda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n HMK\u2019n\u0131n 26. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen taleple ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k olu\u015fturaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle \u00f6nceki h\u00fck\u00fcmde direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. G\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere mahkemece, \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011fi belirtilen 08.11.2013 tarihli fesih ihtarnamesindeki t\u00fcm fesih sebepleri de\u011ferlendirilmek suretiyle yeni bir karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. Bu durumda ortada Hukuk Genel Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan incelenmesi gereken direnme karar\u0131 de\u011fil, bozmaya eylemli uyma sonucu verilen yeni h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca yeni h\u00fckme y\u00f6nelik temyiz itirazlar\u0131 \u00d6zel Dairece incelenmelidir.<\/p>\n
22. Bu nedenle dosya \u00d6zel Daireye g\u00f6nderilmelidir.<\/p>\n
V. SONU\u00c7:<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekilinin yeni h\u00fckme y\u00f6nelik temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi i\u00e7in dosyan\u0131n YARGITAY 9. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130NE G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,
\nKarar d\u00fczeltme yolu kapal\u0131 olmak \u00fczere, 10.02.2022 tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile kesin olarak karar verildi.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
13. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2017\/9401 E., 2019\/4470 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
……
\nTaraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonunda ilamda yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerden dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 avukat\u0131nca temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosya incelendi gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc.<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 idare, daval\u0131lar ile 01\/04\/2012-28\/12\/2012 tarihleri aras\u0131nda hizmet ve alan \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda kullan\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u015fof\u00f6r\u00fc ile birlikte 74 adet minib\u00fcs ve 32 adet binek otomobilin sadece … g\u00fcnlerinde ve mesai saatlerinde kiralanmas\u0131 i\u015fiyle ilgili s\u00f6zle\u015fme imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 16.1.4 maddesinde “Ayl\u0131k hak edi\u015fin y\u00fckleniciye \u00f6dendi\u011fi tarihten itibaren 3 … g\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7inde ihale konusu i\u015fte \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan \u015fof\u00f6rlerin \u00fccretlerini \u00f6denmedi\u011fi takdirde her \u00fccreti \u00f6denmeyen \u015fof\u00f6r i\u00e7in her g\u00fcn s\u00f6zle\u015fme bedelinin 1\/10000 oran\u0131nda ceza kesilir” h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, idare taraf\u0131ndan 2012 y\u0131l\u0131 Aral\u0131k ay\u0131 hakedi\u015finin 21\/12\/2012 tarihinde \u00f6denmesine kar\u015f\u0131n daval\u0131larca i\u015f\u00e7ilere 3 g\u00fcn gecikmeli olarak 08\/01\/2013 tarihinde \u00f6dendi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fme gere\u011fince 3 g\u00fcnl\u00fck gecikme nedeniyle hesaplanan 221.089,50-TL cezan\u0131n daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131lar, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 28.12.2012 tarihinde sonland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ara\u00e7lar\u0131n \u015fof\u00f6rlerden teslimi beklendi\u011fi i\u00e7in \u00fccretlerin gecikmeli \u00f6dendi\u011fini, s\u00f6zle\u015fme bittikten sonra kendilerine cezai \u015fart uygulanmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak davan\u0131n reddini dilemi\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, davac\u0131 idarenin ifay\u0131 \u00e7ekincesiz kabul ettikten ve s\u00f6zle\u015fme sonland\u0131ktan sonra ifaya eklenen cezai \u015fart talebinde bulunamayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan s\u00f6zle\u015fme kapsam\u0131nda i\u015f\u00e7ilere \u00fccretlerinin ge\u00e7 \u00f6denmesi nedeni ile daval\u0131 y\u00fckleniciden cezai \u015fart tahsili istemi ile eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Daval\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sonland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, avadanl\u0131klar\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7ilerden teslim al\u0131nmadan \u00fccretlerin \u00f6denmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun i\u015f\u00e7i ile i\u015fveren aras\u0131ndaki bir i\u00e7 ili\u015fki olup s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, s\u00f6zle\u015fme sonland\u0131ktan sonra ifa \u00e7ekincesiz kabul edilerek son hakedi\u015f \u00f6demesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, idarece s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine at\u0131fla cezai \u015fart uygulan\u0131p uygulanmayaca\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r. \u0130dare taraf\u0131ndan son hakedi\u015f 31.12.2012 tarihinde y\u00fckleniciye \u00f6denmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6zle\u015fmeye g\u00f6re y\u00fcklenici taraf\u0131ndan i\u015f\u00e7ilere en ge\u00e7 04.01.2013 tarihinde \u00f6denmesi gereken hakedi\u015f, 08.01.2013 tarihinde \u00f6denmi\u015ftir. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 16.1.4 maddesinde “Ayl\u0131k hak edi\u015fin y\u00fckleniciye \u00f6dendi\u011fi tarihten itibaren 3 … g\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7inde ihale konusu i\u015fte \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan \u015fof\u00f6rlerin \u00fccretlerini \u00f6denmedi\u011fi takdirde her \u00fccreti \u00f6denmeyen \u015fof\u00f6r i\u00e7in her g\u00fcn s\u00f6zle\u015fme bedelinin 1\/10000 oran\u0131nda ceza kesilir” h\u00fckm\u00fc d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. \u0130\u015fin y\u00fcklenici taraf\u0131ndan yerine getirildi\u011fi sabittir. Ne var ki s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fckm\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131k olup, hakedi\u015fin yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131ndan itibaren \u00fc\u00e7 … g\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7erisinde i\u015f\u00e7ilere \u00fccretlerinin \u00f6denmesi gerekmektedir. \u0130\u015f\u00e7inin korunmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn, avadanl\u0131klar\u0131n toplanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi belirtilerek ihlal edilmesi cezai \u015fart h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131na istisna te\u015fkil edemez. 6100 sayl\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 266. maddesinde genel bilgi ve tecr\u00fcbeyle ya da hakimlik mesle\u011finin gerektirdi\u011fi hukuki bilgiyle \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan konularda bilirki\u015fiye ba\u015fvurulamayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcnden anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin yorumu hakime ait olup bu konuda al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131 esas al\u0131narak yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7e ile h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, bozma sebebidir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7: Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle temyiz olunan h\u00fckm\u00fcn davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na BOZULMASINA, HUMK\u2019nun 440\/I maddesi uyar\u0131nca tebli\u011fden itibaren … g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere, 03\/04\/2019 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bUyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, i\u015f\u00e7i taraf\u0131ndan hakl\u0131 fesih iddias\u0131n\u0131n ispat\u0131 ile k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ve y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti istemine ili\u015fkindir.\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2022\/17003 E., 2023\/341 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” \u0130NCELENEN KARARIN MAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 5. Hukuk Dairesi SAYISI : 2022\/268 E., 2022\/3322 K. KARAR : \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddi \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 : … 46. … Mahkemesi SAYISI : 2021\/172 E., 2021\/281 K. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurunun esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten ve Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: I. DAVA Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; davac\u0131n\u0131n … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini … 17. Noterli\u011finin 24.05.2019 tarihli ihtarnamesi ile 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 … Kanunu’nun (4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 24 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin (II) numaral\u0131 bendinin (e) alt bendine g\u00f6re \u00fccretinin \u00f6denmemesi sebebiyle hakl\u0131 nedenle feshetti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti ve fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir. II. CEVAP Daval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; s\u00fcreklilik arz etmeyen, k\u0131sa s\u00fcreli gecikmelerin i\u015f\u00e7iye hakl\u0131 nedenle fesih hakk\u0131 verilmeyece\u011fi hususunun Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131 ile belirlendi\u011fini, …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n