{"id":93566,"date":"2025-05-21T12:23:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T09:23:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/uncategorized-tr\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/"},"modified":"2025-05-21T12:23:00","modified_gmt":"2025-05-21T09:23:00","slug":"yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/","title":{"rendered":"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"

T.C.<\/p>\n

Yarg\u0131tay <\/p>\n

4. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n

2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K.<\/p>\n

“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n

MAHKEMES\u0130 :Ticaret Mahkemesi
\nSAYISI : 2019\/661 E., 2021\/22 K.
\nH\u00dcK\u00dcM\/KARAR : Davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc<\/p>\n

Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131nda verilen karar hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan temyiz incelemesi sonucunda, Yarg\u0131tay (kapat\u0131lan) 17. Hukuk Dairesince karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Mahkemece bozmaya uyularak yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda; davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Mahkemenin as\u0131l karar\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekili, 25.05.2021 tarihli tavzih karar\u0131 daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketi 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\u00e7elerinin 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\u0131lar vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; 22.09.2012 tarihinde s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc daval\u0131 …, maliki daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti., zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u015e. olan ara\u00e7 ile s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc …, maliki daval\u0131 … Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti., zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u015e. olan arac\u0131n kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7ift tarafl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 sonucunda, daval\u0131lardan …\u2019in y\u00f6netimindeki arac\u0131n yaya kald\u0131r\u0131m\u0131nda beklemekte olan davac\u0131lardan …’e \u00e7arparak yaralanmas\u0131na sebep oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131lardan …’in …\u2019in e\u015fi, …’\u0131n …\u2019in k\u0131z\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131 ile davac\u0131lardan … i\u00e7in 20.225,57 TL maddi ve 200.000,00 TL manevi, … i\u00e7in 50.000,00 TL ve … i\u00e7in 50.000,00 TL manevi tazminat olmak \u00fczere toplam 325.905,57 TL tazminat\u0131n faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsilini talep etmi\u015f, talep art\u0131r\u0131m dilek\u00e7esi ile maddi tazminata ili\u015fkin taleplerini 290.673,46 TL\u2019ye y\u00fckseltmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

II. CEVAP
\n1.Daval\u0131lar … ve Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret Ltd \u015eti vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin kazada kusurlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, di\u011fer daval\u0131 …’nun m\u00fcvekkilinin arac\u0131na h\u0131zla \u00e7arparak yolunu de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fini ve bunun neticesinde davac\u0131ya \u00e7arpt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

2.Daval\u0131 … vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; kazaya kar\u0131\u015fan ara\u00e7lar\u0131 kullanan \u015fah\u0131slar\u0131n tacir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bu nedenle davan\u0131n Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n kaza tarihinde devlet memuru olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bu nedenle yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu tedavi masraflar\u0131n\u0131 ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu kurumdan talep etmesi gerekti\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fi ve k\u0131z\u0131n\u0131n bak\u0131m\u0131na muhta\u00e7 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle davac\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fi ve k\u0131z\u0131 i\u00e7in istenen manevi tazminat taleplerinin kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

3.Daval\u0131 …\u015e. vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketin sorumlulu\u011funun sigortal\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n kusuru ve poli\u00e7e limiti ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011funu, buna g\u00f6re poli\u00e7edeki ki\u015fi ba\u015f\u0131 sakatl\u0131k ve \u00f6l\u00fcm teminatlar\u0131n\u0131n 225.000,00 TL oldu\u011funu, manevi tazminat ve tedavi taleplerinin poli\u00e7e teminat\u0131 dahilinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n u\u011fram\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n Adli T\u0131p Kurumundan al\u0131nacak rapor ile belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

4.Daval\u0131 … Genel Sigorta A.\u015e. vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; poli\u00e7edeki ki\u015fi ba\u015f\u0131 sakatl\u0131k ve \u00f6l\u00fcm teminatlar\u0131n\u0131n 225.000,00 TL oldu\u011funu, manevi tazminat ve tedavi taleplerinin poli\u00e7e teminat\u0131 dahilinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Adli T\u0131p Kurumu raporu ile belirlenmesi gerekti\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

5.Daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketi vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; davaya konu trafik kazas\u0131na kar\u0131\u015fan … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n her ne kadar m\u00fcvekkiline ait olsa da 28.08.2012 tarihli uzun s\u00fcreli otomobil kiralama s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile daval\u0131 …’na davad\u0131\u015f\u0131 P ve P Turizm Org. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. ad\u0131na kiralanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu, kaza tarihi itibariyle arac\u0131n i\u015fleteni P ve P Turizm Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. oldu\u011fundan m\u00fcvekkili aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca talep edilen tazminat miktarlar\u0131n\u0131n fazla oldu\u011funu ve davac\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcrekli sakatl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 adli t\u0131p raporu ile belgelendirmesi gerekti\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

III. MAHKEME KARARI
\nMahkemenin 04.05.2016 tarihli 2013\/177 E., 2016\/311 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; dosya kapsam\u0131nda al\u0131nan 15.05.2015 tarihli rapora g\u00f6re kazan\u0131n meydana gelmesinde daval\u0131 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc …’nun tam kusurlu oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc …’in ve davac\u0131 yaya … ‘nun kusursuz oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle daval\u0131lardan …, Ltd. \u015eti. ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e. aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fi, Akdeniz \u00dcniversitesi Adli T\u0131p Anabilim Dal\u0131 Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan 06.06.2014 tarihli rapora g\u00f6re davac\u0131 …’in kazadan kaynaklanan maluliyetinin %61 oran\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, ge\u00e7ici i\u015fg\u00f6remezlik s\u00fcresinin 6 ay oldu\u011fu, akt\u00fcer bilirki\u015fi raporu ile tazminat\u0131n usul\u00fcnce hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kazaya sebebiyet veren … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n maliki daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. aleyhine dava a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de, dosyaya ibraz edilen belgelerden kazaya kar\u0131\u015fan arac\u0131n daval\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan P ve P Turizm Ltd. \u015eirketine kiraya verildi\u011fi, s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc …’nun arac\u0131 teslim almaya ve kullanmaya yetkilendirildi\u011fi ve …’\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131nda iken kazan\u0131n meydana geldi\u011fi, arac\u0131n kiraya verilmesi sebebiyle daval\u0131 \u015firketin i\u015fleten s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu nedenle davac\u0131n\u0131n zarar\u0131ndan sorumlu tutulamayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n an\u0131lan daval\u0131 \u015firket y\u00f6n\u00fcnden pasif husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine karar vermek gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davac\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131lar …, Ltd \u015eti ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e. aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine, davac\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131 … Ltd \u015eti aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n pasif husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan reddine, davac\u0131 … ‘nun daval\u0131lar … ve … Sigorta A\u015e aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile; 290.673,46 TL’nin 03.03.2015 tarihli ara karar\u0131 ile verilen 40.000,00 TL ge\u00e7ici \u00f6deme mahsup edildikten sonra kalan 250.673,46 TL’nin (sigorta \u015firketinin poli\u00e7e teminat limiti olan 225.000,00 TL’den 40.000,00 TL ge\u00e7ici \u00f6deme mahsubundan sonra kalan 185.000,00 TL limit ile sorumlu olacak \u015fekilde) daval\u0131 … y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kaza tarihi olan 22.09.2012, sigorta \u015firketi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden dava tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131lardan m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline, davac\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131 … aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile; davac\u0131 … i\u00e7in 100.000,00 TL, davac\u0131 … i\u00e7in 20.000,00 TL, davac\u0131 … i\u00e7in 20.000,00.-TL olmak \u00fczere toplam 140.000,00 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n daval\u0131dan kaza tarihi olan 22.09.2012 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte tahsiline, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

IV. BOZMA VE BOZMADAN SONRAK\u0130 YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130
\nA. Bozma Karar\u0131
\n1.Mahkeme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

2. Yarg\u0131tay (kapat\u0131lan) 17. Hukuk Dairesinin 17.06.2019 tarihli 2016\/16248 E., 2019\/7690 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile “…2- Mahkemece yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7e ile daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n husumet y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddine karar verilmi\u015fse de yap\u0131lan ara\u015ft\u0131rmak inceleme h\u00fck\u00fcm vermeye yeterli de\u011fildir. 2918 say\u0131l\u0131 Karayollar\u0131 Trafik Kanunu’nun 3.maddesine g\u00f6re; ” Ara\u00e7 sahibi olan veya m\u00fclkiyeti muhafaza kayd\u0131yla sat\u0131\u015fta al\u0131c\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131yla sicilde kay\u0131tl\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclen veya arac\u0131n uzun s\u00fcreli kiralama, ariyet veya rehni gibi hallerde kirac\u0131, ariyet veya rehin alan ki\u015fidir. Ancak ilgili taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fka bir ki\u015finin arac\u0131 kendi hesab\u0131na ve tehlikesi kendisine ait olmak \u00fczere i\u015fletti\u011fi ve ara\u00e7 \u00fczerinde fiili tasarrufu bulundu\u011fu ispat edilirse, bu kimse i\u015fleten say\u0131l\u0131r.” Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, arac\u0131n kay\u0131t maliki olan T\u00fcre Turizm Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti., arac\u0131n 28.08.2012 tarihli kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile daval\u0131 …’na, P ve P Turizm Org.Tic.Ltd.\u015eti ad\u0131na kiraland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015f, kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve bir tak\u0131m faturalar\u0131 delil olarak dosyaya ibraz etmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece \u00f6ncelikle yukar\u0131da belirtilen “i\u015fleten” kavram\u0131 \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde davac\u0131 yan\u0131n iddialar\u0131 \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131, bahsi ge\u00e7en T\u00fcre Turizm Ticaret Ltd. \u015eti.’ne ait o d\u00f6neme ili\u015fkin ticari defterlerinin getirtilerek kaza tarihinden \u00f6nce daval\u0131 \u015firketin ara\u00e7 \u00fczerindeki fiili tasarrufunun sona erip ermedi\u011finin teredd\u00fcts\u00fcz bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya konarak i\u015fleten s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n kimde oldu\u011funun ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken, eksik inceleme ve ara\u015ft\u0131rma sonucu h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.” gerek\u00e7esi ile h\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f, bozma kapsam ve nedenine g\u00f6re davac\u0131lar vekilinin manevi tazminata ve vekalet \u00fccretine y\u00f6nelik temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine gerek g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

B. Mahkemece Bozmaya Uyularak Verilen Karar
\n1.Mahkemenin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile; “Mahkememizce bozma ilam\u0131 do\u011frultusunda \u0130stanbul N\u00f6bet\u00e7i Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesinde talimat yoluyla daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketinin ticari defter ve kay\u0131tlar\u0131 da inceletilerek yeminli mali m\u00fc\u015favirden rapor al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f, bilirki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan ibraz edilen 24.07.2020 tarihli raporda \u00f6zetle ve sonu\u00e7 olarak kazaya kar\u0131\u015fan … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n 28.08.2012 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 02.10.2012 tarihine kadar s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc … olmak \u00fczere dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 P ve P Turizm Org. Ltd. \u015eirketine kiraland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ticari defterlere s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayal\u0131 olarak bir adet fatura kaydedildi\u011fi, kaza tarihinin 22.09.2012 tarihi oldu\u011fu dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kaza tarihinde arac\u0131n P ve P Turizm Org. Ltd. \u015eirketi kullan\u0131m\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, buna g\u00f6re dava konusu arac\u0131n dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 P ve P Tur. Org. Ltd. \u015eirketi taraf\u0131ndan i\u015fletildi\u011fi, kaza tarihinde arac\u0131 kirac\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131 ile kendi hesab\u0131na ve tehlikesi kendisine ait olmak \u00fczere i\u015fletti\u011fi ve ara\u00e7 \u00fczerinde fiili tasarrufunun bulundu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. \u0130tiraz \u00fczerine dosya yeniden talimat yoluyla rapor veren bilirki\u015fiye tevdi edilmi\u015f, bilirki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan ibraz edilen 30.10.2020 tarihli ek raporda \u00f6zetle ve sonu\u00e7 olarak fatura ve kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ayn\u0131 tarihli oldu\u011fu, her ikisinin cevap dilek\u00e7esi ekinde dosyaya sunuldu\u011fu, buna g\u00f6re s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin dava konusu … plakal\u0131 ara\u00e7 i\u00e7in d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f oldu\u011fu, faturan\u0131n vergi dairesine bildirilip bildirilmemesinin fiili durumu ortadan kald\u0131rmayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek k\u00f6k rapor aynen tekrar edilmi\u015ftir…Mahkememizce yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama, toplanan deliller, bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131, yarg\u0131tay bozma ilam\u0131 do\u011frultusunda; daval\u0131 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc …’in kazada herhangi bir kusurunun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, bu daval\u0131, s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc oldu\u011fu ara\u00e7 maliki Ltd. \u015eirketi ve arac\u0131n … sigortac\u0131s\u0131 olan G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A\u015e aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir…Yine davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kazaya kar\u0131\u015fan … plakal\u0131 arac\u0131n maliki olan T\u00fcre Turz. Ltd. \u015eirketi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de dosyaya ibraz edilen kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, fatura ve h\u00fck\u00fcm vermeye yeterli ve elveri\u015fli g\u00f6r\u00fcnen mali m\u00fc\u015favir rapor ve ek rapor kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda kaza tarihinde arac\u0131n daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 P ve P Tur. Org. Ltd. \u015eirketine uzun s\u00fcreli kiralanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fleten s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, arac\u0131n kaza tarihinde dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan i\u015fletildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, bu daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n pasif husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.” gerek\u00e7esiyle davac\u0131 … ‘nun daval\u0131lar …, Ltd \u015eti ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e. aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine, daval\u0131 … Ltd \u015eti aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n pasif husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle dava \u015fart\u0131 yoklu\u011fundan reddine, daval\u0131lar … ve … Sigorta A.\u015e. aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 maddi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile 290.673,46 TL’nin daval\u0131 …\u015e. poli\u00e7e limiti olan 225.000,00 TL’sinden sorumlu olmak \u00fczere, daval\u0131 … kaza tarihi olan 22.09.2012’den, sigorta \u015firketi dava tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizinden sorumlu olmak \u00fczere daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken m\u00fcteselsilen al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine, 03.03.2015 tarihli ara kararla davac\u0131ya yap\u0131lan 40.000,00 TL ge\u00e7ici \u00f6demenin infaz a\u015famas\u0131nda nazara al\u0131nmas\u0131na, davac\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131 … aleyhine a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131 manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile; davac\u0131 … i\u00e7in 100.000,00 TL, davac\u0131 … i\u00e7in 20.000,00 TL, davac\u0131 … i\u00e7in 20.000,00 TL olmak \u00fczere toplam 140.000,00 TL manevi tazminat\u0131n daval\u0131dan kaza tarihi olan 22.09.2012 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte tahsiline, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

2.Davac\u0131lar vekilinin, h\u00fckm\u00fcn B2 ve B3 bentlerinde reddedilen manevi tazminat bak\u0131m\u0131ndan daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. lehine iki kez vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle vekalet \u00fccretine ili\u015fkin tavzih talebinde bulunmas\u0131 \u00fczerine mahkemenin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen tavzih karar\u0131 ile; karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n 7. sayfas\u0131n\u0131n “B” bendinde bulunan “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret tarifesi uyar\u0131nca davada reddedilen miktar dikkate al\u0131narak hesap edilen 17.230,00.-TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin davac\u0131lardan al\u0131narak daval\u0131lar … ve T\u00fcre Turizm Ticaret Ltd.\u015eti.’ne verilmesine,” k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131larak, “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret tarifesi uyar\u0131nca davada reddedilen miktar dikkate al\u0131narak hesap edilen 17.230,00.-TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin davac\u0131lardan al\u0131narak daval\u0131 …’na verilmesine,” \u015feklinde karar\u0131n tavzihine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

V. TEMY\u0130Z
\nA. Temyiz Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\nMahkemenin yukar\u0131da belirtilen as\u0131l karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekili, tavzih karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. vekili s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

B. Temyiz Sebepleri
\n1.Davac\u0131lar vekili as\u0131l karara kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde; daval\u0131lardan …, Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti. ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e. aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc …\u2019in ceza davas\u0131nda al\u0131nan kusur raporuna g\u00f6re kazan\u0131n meydana gelmesinde % 20 oran\u0131nda kusurlu oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131lardan …, Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti. ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e. y\u00f6n\u00fcnden aleyhlerine vekalet \u00fccreti ve yarg\u0131lama giderine h\u00fckmedilmemesi gerekti\u011fini, kaza meydana geldi\u011finde al\u0131nan ilk raporda daval\u0131 …\u2019e kusur atfedildi\u011fini, davan\u0131n bu rapora istinaden a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda daval\u0131n\u0131n kusurlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, meydana gelen kaza nedeni ile an\u0131lan daval\u0131lar i\u015f bu davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na sebebiyet vermi\u015f oldu\u011fundan aleyhlerine vekalet \u00fccretine karar verilmesinin usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, ayr\u0131ca an\u0131lan daval\u0131lar lehine vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesini kabul etmemekle birlikte h\u00fckm\u00fcn 1 nci maddesinin 4 \u00fcnc\u00fc c\u00fcmlesinde yer alan 28.797,14 TL nispi vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesinin de hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, an\u0131lan daval\u0131lar aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n tamamen reddine karar verildi\u011finden nispi vekalet \u00fccreti yerine maktu vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesi gerekti\u011fini, daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, an\u0131lan daval\u0131n\u0131n ara\u00e7 maliki oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan dosyaya sunulan kiralama s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ve eklerinin her zaman d\u00fczenlenebilecek olan belgeler oldu\u011funu, sunulan fatura i\u00e7eri\u011fi ve miktar\u0131 incelendi\u011finde arac\u0131n k\u0131sa s\u00fcreli kiraland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu sebeple daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketinin i\u015fleten s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dosya kapsam\u0131nda al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporuna bu hususta itiraz ettiklerini, ancak bilirki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan ek raporda bu y\u00f6nde bir inceleme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, taraflar aras\u0131nda tanzim edilen kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 3. ki\u015fileri ba\u011flayacak g\u00fc\u00e7te bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, arac\u0131n teslim edilip edilmedi\u011fi, ara\u00e7 \u00fczerinde fiili hakimiyet ve ekonomik yararlanma olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015fartlar\u0131 varsa ariyet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin veya ariyet bedelinin Maliye ve Vergi Dairelerine bildirilip bildirilmedi\u011fi, bedellerinin \u00f6denip \u00f6denmedi\u011fi, daval\u0131 malik ve kiralayan\u0131n ticari defter ve kay\u0131tlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde bilirki\u015fi marifetiyle inceleme yapt\u0131r\u0131lmak suretiyle kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin belirtilen bu deliller ile fatura ve cari hesap hareketleri gibi yan delillerle desteklenip desteklenmedi\u011fi, daval\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fletenlik s\u0131fat\u0131n\u0131n devam edip etmedi\u011fi hususlar\u0131 tart\u0131\u015f\u0131larak var\u0131lacak uygun sonuca g\u00f6re bir karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fini, daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. lehine vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, taraflar aras\u0131nda kiralama ili\u015fkisinin olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n dava a\u00e7\u0131lma a\u015famas\u0131nda davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a tespitinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kaza tutana\u011f\u0131nda ara\u00e7 maliki olarak T\u00fcre Turizm Ltd. \u015eti\u2019nin yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle an\u0131lan \u015firkete husumet y\u00f6neltildi\u011fini, daval\u0131lardan …, Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti. ve T\u00fcre Turizm Ltd. \u015eti. y\u00f6n\u00fcnden manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, h\u00fckmedilen manevi tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck oldu\u011funu belirterek, karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

2.Daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. vekili tavzih karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun “H\u00fckm\u00fcn tavzihi ” \u00fcst ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 305 inci maddesinde \u201c Mahkemece verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm yeterince a\u00e7\u0131k de\u011filse veya icras\u0131nda teredd\u00fct uyand\u0131r\u0131yor yahut birbirine ayk\u0131r\u0131 f\u0131kralar i\u00e7eriyorsa, icras\u0131 tamamlan\u0131ncaya kadar taraflardan her biri h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131 veya teredd\u00fct ya da ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesini isteyebilir. H\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131nda taraflara tan\u0131nan haklar ve y\u00fcklenen bor\u00e7lar, tavzih yolu ile s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131r\u0131lamaz, geni\u015fletilemez ve de\u011fi\u015ftirilemez\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulundu\u011funu, mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan tavzih yolu ile m\u00fcvekkil lehine h\u00fckmedilen vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, tavzih karar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fckm\u00fcn de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi mahiyetinde oldu\u011funu, bahse konu tavzih talep dilek\u00e7esinin taraflar\u0131na tebli\u011f edilmedi\u011fini, 15.01.2021 tarihinde verilen mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n taraflar\u0131nca 12.04.2021 tarihinde icraya konu edildi\u011fini, mahkemece tavzih olunan karar\u0131n taraflar\u0131na hen\u00fcz tebli\u011f edilmeden evvel icraya konu edilmesi nedeniyle art\u0131k tavzih karar\u0131 verilemeyece\u011fini belirterek, karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

C. Gerek\u00e7e
\n1.Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ve Hukuki Nitelendirme
\nUyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; daval\u0131lar\u0131n s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc, maliki, zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 olduklar\u0131 ara\u00e7lar\u0131n kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 sonucu davac\u0131n\u0131n yaralanmas\u0131 sebebiyle davac\u0131 ve yak\u0131nlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan talep edilen s\u00fcrekli i\u015fg\u00f6remezlik tazminat\u0131, ge\u00e7ici i\u015fg\u00f6remezlik tazminat\u0131 ve manevi tazminata ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n

2. \u0130lgili Hukuk
\n6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun (6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) ge\u00e7ici 3 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131 atf\u0131yla uygulanmas\u0131na devam olunan m\u00fclga 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun (1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 428 inci maddesi, 438 inci maddesinin yedi, sekiz ve dokuzuncu f\u0131kralar\u0131 ile 439 uncu maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 124 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesi, olay tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun 49, 54 ve 56 \u0131nc\u0131 maddeleri<\/p>\n

3. De\u011ferlendirme
\n1. Davac\u0131lar vekilinin, h\u00fckm\u00fcn B2 ve B3 bentlerinde, reddedilen manevi tazminat bak\u0131m\u0131ndan daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. lehine iki kez vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle vekalet \u00fccretine ili\u015fkin tavzih talebinde bulunmas\u0131 \u00fczerine mahkemenin 25.05.2021 tarihli tavzih karar\u0131 ile; karar\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n 7. sayfas\u0131n\u0131n “B” bendinde bulunan “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret tarifesi uyar\u0131nca davada reddedilen miktar dikkate al\u0131narak hesap edilen 17.230,00.-TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin davac\u0131lardan al\u0131narak daval\u0131lar … ve T\u00fcre Turizm Ticaret Ltd.\u015eti.’ne verilmesine,” k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131larak, “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret tarifesi uyar\u0131nca davada reddedilen miktar dikkate al\u0131narak hesap edilen 17.230,00.-TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinin davac\u0131lardan al\u0131narak daval\u0131 …’na verilmesine,” \u015feklinde karar\u0131n tavzihine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Mahkemenin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen as\u0131l karar\u0131nda h\u00fckm\u00fcn B2 ve B3 bentlerinde reddedilen manevi tazminat bak\u0131m\u0131ndan daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. lehine iki kez vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi, tavzih karar\u0131 ile bu hususun d\u00fczeltildi\u011fi, buna g\u00f6re mahkemenin 25.05.2021 tarihli tavzih karar\u0131n\u0131n usul ve yasaya uygun oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. vekilinin tavzih karar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik temyiz isteminin reddi ile s\u00f6z konusu tavzih karar\u0131n\u0131n onanmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

2. Temyizen incelenen Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n bozmaya uygun oldu\u011fu, kararda ve karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n somut olaya uygulanmas\u0131nda bir isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bozmaya uyulmakla kar\u015f\u0131 taraf yarar\u0131na kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak durumunu olu\u015fturan y\u00f6nlerin ise yeniden incelenmesine hukuk\u00e7a imk\u00e2n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc …’in kazan\u0131n meydana gelmesinde kusuru bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, buna g\u00f6re daval\u0131lardan …, Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti. ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e. y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinin isabetli oldu\u011fu, dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki belgelere g\u00f6re daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketinin davaya konu arac\u0131 28.08.2012 tarihli uzun s\u00fcreli ara\u00e7 kiralama s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile davad\u0131\u015f\u0131 P ve P Turizm Org. Tic. Ltd. \u015eirketine kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kaza tarihinde daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketinin i\u015fleten s\u0131fat\u0131 bulunmamas\u0131 sebebiyle bu daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine karar verilmesinin usul ve yasaya uygun oldu\u011fu, olay tarihi, olay\u0131n olu\u015f \u015fekli, taraflar\u0131n kusur oran\u0131, davac\u0131 …’\u0131n () kazadan kaynaklanan maluliyetine g\u00f6re takdir edilen manevi tazminat miktarlar\u0131nda isabetsizlik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, davac\u0131lar vekilinin a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bentlerin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

3. Mahkemenin 04.05.2016 tarihli 2013\/177 E., 2016\/311 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ilk karar\u0131nda daval\u0131lardan …, Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti. ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e. aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan maddi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine, daval\u0131lardan … ve Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti. aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan manevi tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi, reddedilen maddi tazminat y\u00f6n\u00fcnden an\u0131lan daval\u0131lar lehine 3.108,67 TL vekalet \u00fccretine, reddedilen manevi tazminat y\u00f6n\u00fcnden an\u0131lan daval\u0131lar lehine 1.800,00 TL vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi, s\u00f6z konusu karar\u0131n daval\u0131lar …, Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti. ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e. taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u015eu durumda; daval\u0131lar …, Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti. ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A.\u015e.’nin mahkemenin ilk karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 vekalet \u00fccreti y\u00f6n\u00fcnden temyiz itiraz\u0131nda bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131na g\u00f6re, vekalet \u00fccreti bak\u0131m\u0131ndan davac\u0131lar lehine usuli kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak olu\u015fmu\u015f olup, mahkemece yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmeyle an\u0131lan daval\u0131lar lehine daha fazla miktarda vekalet \u00fccretine h\u00fckmedilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 bozmay\u0131 gerektirir.<\/p>\n

Ne var ki, belirlenen bu yan\u0131lg\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesi yeniden yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 gerektirmedi\u011finden, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n, 6217 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 30. maddesi ile 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019na eklenen \u201cGe\u00e7ici madde 3\u201d atf\u0131yla uygulanmakta olan 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 438\/7. maddesi gere\u011fince d\u00fczeltilerek onanmas\u0131 uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

4. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun “Tarafta iradi de\u011fi\u015fiklik” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 124 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin 4 \u00fcnc\u00fc f\u0131kras\u0131 “Dava dilek\u00e7esinde taraf\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015f veya eksik g\u00f6sterilmesi kabul edilebilir bir yan\u0131lg\u0131ya dayan\u0131yorsa, h\u00e2kim kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n r\u0131zas\u0131n\u0131 aramaks\u0131z\u0131n taraf de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi talebini kabul edebilir. Bu durumda h\u00e2kim, davan\u0131n taraf\u0131 olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan ve aleyhine dava a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131na sebebiyet vermeyen ki\u015fi lehine yarg\u0131lama giderlerine h\u00fckmeder.” \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Dosya kapsam\u0131ndan; davac\u0131lar vekilinin dava dilek\u00e7esinde, kazaya sebebiyet veren otomobilin i\u015fleteni s\u0131fat\u0131yla daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketini daval\u0131 olarak g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi, dosya kapsam\u0131ndaki belgelere g\u00f6re daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketinin davaya konu arac\u0131 28.08.2012 tarihli uzun s\u00fcreli ara\u00e7 kiralama s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile davad\u0131\u015f\u0131 P ve P Turizm Org. Tic. Ltd. \u015eirketine kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kaza tarihinde daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketinin i\u015fleten s\u0131fat\u0131 bulunmamas\u0131 sebebiyle mahkemece an\u0131lan daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fu nedeniyle reddine karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u015eu halde, kaza tarihinde davaya konu arac\u0131n daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketi ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, an\u0131lan daval\u0131n\u0131n davaya konu arac\u0131 davad\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u015firkete kiralad\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunun davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte davac\u0131larca tespit edilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu haliyle HMK\u2019nun 124 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde dava dilek\u00e7esinde taraf\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015f veya eksik g\u00f6sterilmesinin kabul edilebilir bir yan\u0131lg\u0131ya dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131na g\u00f6re mahkemece daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketi lehine vekalet \u00fccretine karar verilmesi bozmay\u0131 gerektirir.<\/p>\n

Ne var ki, belirlenen bu yan\u0131lg\u0131n\u0131n giderilmesi yeniden yarg\u0131lamay\u0131 gerektirmedi\u011finden, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n, 6217 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 30. maddesi ile 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019na eklenen \u201cGe\u00e7ici madde 3\u201d atf\u0131yla uygulanmakta olan 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 438\/7. maddesi gere\u011fince d\u00fczeltilerek onanmas\u0131 uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

VI. KARAR
\n1. De\u011ferlendirme b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn (1) numaral\u0131 bendinde a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti. vekilinin tavzih karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddi ile mahkemece verilen 25.05.2021 tarihli tavzih karar\u0131n\u0131n ONANMASINA,<\/p>\n

2. De\u011ferlendirme b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn (2) numaral\u0131 bendinde a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle davac\u0131lar vekilinin di\u011fer temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n

3. De\u011ferlendirme b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn (3) numaral\u0131 bendinde a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle davac\u0131lar vekilinin temyiz itiraz\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131n A.1. bendinde yer alan “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi uyar\u0131nca hesaplanan 28.797,14.-TL nispi vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131 …’den al\u0131narak daval\u0131lar …, Ltd. \u015eirketi ve G\u00fcne\u015f Sigorta A\u015e’ye VER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,” ibaresinin h\u00fck\u00fcmden tamamen \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131larak yerine “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi uyar\u0131nca hesaplanan 3.108,67.-TL nispi vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131dan al\u0131narak daval\u0131lara VER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,” ibaresinin yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na, B.1. bendinde yer alan “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi 10\/3 maddesi uyar\u0131nca hesap edilen 4.080,00.-TL maktu vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131lardan al\u0131narak daval\u0131lara VER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,” ibaresinin h\u00fck\u00fcmden tamamen \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131larak yerine “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi 10\/3 maddesi uyar\u0131nca hesap edilen 1.800,00.-TL vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131lardan al\u0131narak daval\u0131lara VER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,” ibaresinin yaz\u0131lmas\u0131na,<\/p>\n

4. De\u011ferlendirme b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn (4) numaral\u0131 bendinde a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle davac\u0131lar vekilinin temyiz itiraz\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile mahkemenin karar\u0131n\u0131n A.2. bendinde yer alan “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi uyar\u0131nca hesaplanan 4.080,00.-TL maktu vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131dan al\u0131narak daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketine VER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,” ibaresi ile B.2 bendinde yer alan “Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi 10\/3 maddesi uyar\u0131nca hesap edilen 4.080,00.-TL maktu vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131lardan al\u0131narak daval\u0131lara VER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,” ibaresinin h\u00fck\u00fcmden tamamen \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131na,<\/p>\n

5. Karar\u0131n bu \u015fekliyle D\u00dcZELT\u0130LEREK ONANMASINA;<\/p>\n

Pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz karar harc\u0131n\u0131n istek h\u00e2linde davac\u0131lara iadesine,<\/p>\n

A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 temyiz giderinin temyiz eden daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti.’ye y\u00fckletilmesine,<\/p>\n

Dosyan\u0131n Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine,<\/p>\n

16.01.2023 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n

\u200bYarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 16.01.2023 tarihli, 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n

Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :Ticaret Mahkemesi SAYISI : 2019\/661 E., 2021\/22 K. H\u00dcK\u00dcM\/KARAR : Davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131nda verilen karar hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan temyiz incelemesi sonucunda, Yarg\u0131tay (kapat\u0131lan) 17. Hukuk Dairesince karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece bozmaya uyularak yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda; davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemenin as\u0131l karar\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekili, 25.05.2021 tarihli tavzih karar\u0131 daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketi 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\u00e7elerinin 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\u0131lar vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; 22.09.2012 tarihinde s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc daval\u0131 …, maliki daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti., zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u015e. olan ara\u00e7 ile s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc …, maliki daval\u0131 … Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti., zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u015e. olan arac\u0131n kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7ift tarafl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 sonucunda, daval\u0131lardan …\u2019in y\u00f6netimindeki arac\u0131n yaya kald\u0131r\u0131m\u0131nda beklemekte olan davac\u0131lardan …’e \u00e7arparak yaralanmas\u0131na sebep oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131lardan …’in …\u2019in e\u015fi, …’\u0131n …\u2019in k\u0131z\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131 ile davac\u0131lardan … i\u00e7in 20.225,57 TL maddi ve 200.000,00 TL manevi, … i\u00e7in …<\/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-93566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nYarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi'nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 - Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi'nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :Ticaret Mahkemesi SAYISI : 2019\/661 E., 2021\/22 K. H\u00dcK\u00dcM\/KARAR : Davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131nda verilen karar hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan temyiz incelemesi sonucunda, Yarg\u0131tay (kapat\u0131lan) 17. Hukuk Dairesince karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece bozmaya uyularak yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda; davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemenin as\u0131l karar\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekili, 25.05.2021 tarihli tavzih karar\u0131 daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketi 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\u00e7elerinin 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\u0131lar vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; 22.09.2012 tarihinde s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc daval\u0131 …, maliki daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti., zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u015e. olan ara\u00e7 ile s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc …, maliki daval\u0131 … Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti., zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u015e. olan arac\u0131n kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7ift tarafl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 sonucunda, daval\u0131lardan …\u2019in y\u00f6netimindeki arac\u0131n yaya kald\u0131r\u0131m\u0131nda beklemekte olan davac\u0131lardan …’e \u00e7arparak yaralanmas\u0131na sebep oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131lardan …’in …\u2019in e\u015fi, …’\u0131n …\u2019in k\u0131z\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131 ile davac\u0131lardan … i\u00e7in 20.225,57 TL maddi ve 200.000,00 TL manevi, … i\u00e7in …\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-05-21T09:23:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Hukuki Haber.net\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041d\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u043e \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043c\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Hukuki Haber.net\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u044b\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Hukuki Haber.net\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/person\/001a271de994a0aa3f90eea084424822\"},\"headline\":\"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-05-21T09:23:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/\"},\"wordCount\":4482,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Hukuki Haberler\"],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/\",\"name\":\"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi'nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 - Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-05-21T09:23:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/\",\"name\":\"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\",\"description\":\"Avukat Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l Antalya Barosu\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/siyah-logo-svg.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/siyah-logo-svg.svg\",\"width\":1080,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/person\/001a271de994a0aa3f90eea084424822\",\"name\":\"Hukuki Haber.net\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57d8a49151495586611a149d29fc42865b951dc053a84709a3172ccb5abf3118?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57d8a49151495586611a149d29fc42865b951dc053a84709a3172ccb5abf3118?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Hukuki Haber.net\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.hukukihaber.net\"],\"url\":\"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/author\/hukukihabernet\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi'nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 - Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi'nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131","og_description":"T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 4. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :Ticaret Mahkemesi SAYISI : 2019\/661 E., 2021\/22 K. H\u00dcK\u00dcM\/KARAR : Davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki maddi ve manevi tazminat davas\u0131nda verilen karar hakk\u0131nda yap\u0131lan temyiz incelemesi sonucunda, Yarg\u0131tay (kapat\u0131lan) 17. Hukuk Dairesince karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece bozmaya uyularak yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda; davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemenin as\u0131l karar\u0131 davac\u0131lar vekili, 25.05.2021 tarihli tavzih karar\u0131 daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eirketi 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\u00e7elerinin 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\u0131lar vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; 22.09.2012 tarihinde s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc daval\u0131 …, maliki daval\u0131 … Ltd. \u015eti., zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u015e. olan ara\u00e7 ile s\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fcs\u00fc …, maliki daval\u0131 … Tekstil … Turizm Ticaret ve San. Ltd. \u015eti., zorunlu trafik sigortac\u0131s\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u015e. olan arac\u0131n kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7ift tarafl\u0131 trafik kazas\u0131 sonucunda, daval\u0131lardan …\u2019in y\u00f6netimindeki arac\u0131n yaya kald\u0131r\u0131m\u0131nda beklemekte olan davac\u0131lardan …’e \u00e7arparak yaralanmas\u0131na sebep oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131lardan …’in …\u2019in e\u015fi, …’\u0131n …\u2019in k\u0131z\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131 ile davac\u0131lardan … i\u00e7in 20.225,57 TL maddi ve 200.000,00 TL manevi, … i\u00e7in …","og_url":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/","og_site_name":"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","article_published_time":"2025-05-21T09:23:00+00:00","author":"Hukuki Haber.net","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041d\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u043e \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043c":"Hukuki Haber.net","\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"22 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u044b"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/"},"author":{"name":"Hukuki Haber.net","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/person\/001a271de994a0aa3f90eea084424822"},"headline":"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131","datePublished":"2025-05-21T09:23:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/"},"wordCount":4482,"publisher":{"@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Hukuki Haberler"],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/","url":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/","name":"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi'nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 - Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-05-21T09:23:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/hukukihaber\/yargitay-2-hukuk-dairesinin-2021-21511-e-2023-478-k-sayili-karari\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 2021\/21511 E., 2023\/478 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#website","url":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/","name":"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","description":"Avukat Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l Antalya Barosu","publisher":{"@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#organization","name":"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l","url":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/siyah-logo-svg.svg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/siyah-logo-svg.svg","width":1080,"height":1080,"caption":"Av. Deniz Can K\u0131z\u0131l"},"image":{"@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/person\/001a271de994a0aa3f90eea084424822","name":"Hukuki Haber.net","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57d8a49151495586611a149d29fc42865b951dc053a84709a3172ccb5abf3118?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/57d8a49151495586611a149d29fc42865b951dc053a84709a3172ccb5abf3118?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Hukuki Haber.net"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.hukukihaber.net"],"url":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/author\/hukukihabernet\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/denizcankizil.tr\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}