T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay <\/p>\n
9. Hukuk Dairesi <\/p>\n
2017\/6563 E., 2017\/17139 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130\u015e MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
DAVA : Davac\u0131lar, … 9. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/8611 Esas Say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda icra takibine konu senetlerin teminat senedi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle … 9. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/8611 Esas Say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131na konu senetten dolay\u0131 bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131klar\u0131na dair karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.
\nYerel mahkemece, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
H\u00fck\u00fcm s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 avukat\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015f olmakla, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n
A) Davac\u0131 \u0130steminin \u00d6zeti:
\nDavac\u0131lar vekili, davac\u0131lardan …’\u0131n daval\u0131 \u015firkette t\u0131r \u015fof\u00f6r\u00fc oldu\u011funu, i\u015fe ba\u015flarken teminat olarak 1 adet 2000 Euro, 1 adette 10.000 Euro’luk 2 ayr\u0131 senet imzalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 …’a da senetlere kefil olarak imzalat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, senetlerin teminat senedi oldu\u011funu, \u00fczerinde de teminat senedi ibaresinin yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a teminat senedidir yaz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n yok edilerek bor\u00e7 senedi haline d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ve … 9.\u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/8611 esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131yla icra takibi ba\u015flatt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, senetlerin teminat senedi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle … 9.\u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/8611 esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131na konan senetten dolay\u0131 davac\u0131lar\u0131n bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespitine karar verilmesini talep edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B) Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
\nDaval\u0131 vekili, teminat senedi ibaresinin bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n kambiyo senedine \u00f6zg\u00fc yolla icra takibine konu olmas\u0131n\u0131 engellemedi\u011fini, davac\u0131 …’\u0131n daval\u0131 \u015firkette 19\/07\/2013 tarihinden itibaren \u015fof\u00f6r olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 27\/07\/2013 tarihinde \u0130talya’ya sefere gitti\u011fini, 01\/08\/2013 tarihinde bo\u015faltma i\u00e7in rezervasyonu oldu\u011fu halde 31\/07\/2013 tarihinde bilgi vermeden arac\u0131n\u0131 …. … Liman\u0131nda terketti\u011fini, rezervasyon s\u00fcresinin ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 07\/08\/2013 tarihi i\u00e7in yeni rezervasyon verildi\u011fini, g\u00fcnl\u00fck 500 Euro’dan 3500 Euro zarar do\u011fdu\u011funu, 06\/08\/2013 tarihinde…. plakal\u0131 arac\u0131 bo\u015faltmak i\u00e7in… adl\u0131 \u015fof\u00f6r\u00fcn g\u00f6revlendirildi\u011fini, bu ki\u015finin kendi arac\u0131yla … Liman\u0131na gitti\u011fini, arac\u0131n\u0131 2 g\u00fcn orada bekletti\u011fini, bu ara\u00e7tan dolay\u0131 2 g\u00fcnl\u00fck toplam 1000 Euro zarar meydana geldi\u011fini, \u015fof\u00f6r\u00fcn davac\u0131n\u0131n b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 arac\u0131 bo\u015falt\u0131p bo\u015f olarak … Liman\u0131na park etti\u011fini, 150 Euro zarar geldi\u011fini, di\u011fer \u015fof\u00f6re \u00f6dendi\u011fini, 19\/08\/2013 tarihinde davac\u0131 …’\u0131n ara\u00e7 yan\u0131na giderek y\u00fckleme i\u00e7in haz\u0131r oldu\u011funu, 13 g\u00fcnl\u00fck kay\u0131p olu\u015ftu\u011funu 6500 Euro zarar meydana geldi\u011fini, davac\u0131 …’in 23\/08\/2013 tarihinde arac\u0131…’a de\u011fil kendi \u015firketlerine b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, arac\u0131n ba\u015fka bir \u015fof\u00f6rle… a g\u00f6nderilmesi nedeniyle 200 EURO masraf yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 \u015firkete ait orjinal \u00e7ipli anahtar\u0131n \u0130stanbul’dan \u0130talya’ya g\u00f6nderilme maliyetinin 500 Euro, toplam zarar\u0131n ise 12.000 Euro oldu\u011funu savunarak, davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini savunmu\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
C) Yerel Mahkeme Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti ve Yarg\u0131lama S\u00fcreci:
\nMahkemece, toplanan kan\u0131tlar ve bilirki\u015fi raporuna dayan\u0131larak, dava konusu senetlerin teminat senedi oldu\u011fu ve i\u015fverenin zarar\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
D) Temyiz:
\nKarar\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili temyiz etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
E) Gerek\u00e7e:<\/p>\n
1-Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, toplanan delillerle karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanuni gerektirici sebeplere g\u00f6re, daval\u0131 vekilinin a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
2-Kural olarak senet sebepten m\u00fccerrettir. Ticaret Hukuku h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine dayal\u0131 senetlerin, teminat kayd\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011finde, poli\u00e7e, bono veya \u00e7ek olsun vasf\u0131n\u0131 kaybetti\u011fi, ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilinmektedir.<\/p>\n
\u0130\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fverenin taraf olduklar\u0131 i\u015f ili\u015fkisinde ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta i\u015fe girerken, baz\u0131 i\u015f kollar\u0131nda i\u015fverenin teminat amac\u0131 ile bu t\u00fcr senetler ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 uygulama ile anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ku\u015fkusuz bu durumun kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 halinde bu \u015fekilde al\u0131nan senet, teminat senedi niteli\u011finde say\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Di\u011fer taraftan, \u0130\u015f Hukuku; i\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisinde, i\u015fverenin sosyal ve ekonomik bak\u0131m\u0131ndan g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc olmas\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7inin korunmas\u0131 ve i\u015f\u00e7i lehine yorum ilkeleri dikkate al\u0131narak, s\u00f6zle\u015fme hukuku alan\u0131nda ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve farkl\u0131 kurallar getirerek geli\u015fmi\u015ftir. Bu nedenle i\u015f hukukunda, d\u00fczenlenen belgelere kar\u015f\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7i lehine tan\u0131k dinletilmesi yoluna gidilmektedir.<\/p>\n
\u0130\u015f\u00e7iden teminat olarak al\u0131nan senet sebebiyle i\u015f\u00e7inin borcu, i\u015fverene verdi\u011fi zarar miktar\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131d\u0131r. Zarar\u0131 i\u015fveren ispatlamal\u0131d\u0131r. Teminat niteli\u011finde al\u0131nan bu senetler i\u015fverenin zarar\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta, dava konusu senedin teminat senedi oldu\u011fu tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r. Davac\u0131 i\u015f\u00e7iden teminat olarak al\u0131nan senet sebebiyle i\u015f\u00e7inin ve kefilin borcu, i\u015fverene verdi\u011fi zarar miktar\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131d\u0131r. H\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan 08.01.2013 tarihli bilirki\u015fi raporunda, dosyada 07.08.2015 tarihli… ad\u0131na yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f 150,00 Euro tutarl\u0131 alacak formuna rastland\u0131\u011f\u0131, di\u011fer zararlar\u0131 ispat edecek belgenin dosyada mevcut olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015f olup, bu miktar kadar zarara neden oldu\u011funa g\u00f6re, zarar mahsup edildikten sonra kalan miktardan davac\u0131lar\u0131n bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitine karar verilmesi gerekirken, davan\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde reddi hatal\u0131 olup bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
F) Sonu\u00e7:<\/p>\n
Temyiz olunan karar\u0131n, yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenden dolay\u0131 BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine 01\/11\/2017 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay <\/p>\n
9. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2015\/24338 E., 2017\/18249 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130 (\u0130\u015e)<\/p>\n
DAVA : Davac\u0131, daval\u0131ya borcu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti ve daval\u0131 aleyhine bonoda yaz\u0131l\u0131 miktar\u0131n %20’si oran\u0131nda k\u00f6t\u00fcniyet tazminat\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Yerel mahkemece, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
H\u00fck\u00fcm s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraflar avukatlar\u0131nca temyiz edilmi\u015f olmakla, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n
A) Davac\u0131 \u0130steminin \u00d6zeti:
\nDavac\u0131 vekili, davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 \u015firketin i\u015f\u00e7isi oldu\u011funu, davaya konu icra takibinin dayana\u011f\u0131 olan bononun da i\u015f\u00e7i-i\u015fveren ili\u015fkisi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, daval\u0131 \u015firketin m\u00fcvekkili aleyhine 23.000,00 TL bedelli bonoya dayal\u0131 olarak icra takibine ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin tacir olmay\u0131p daval\u0131 \u015firkete b\u00f6yle bir borcunun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin 18.09.2008 – 31.10.2010 tarihleri aras\u0131nda daval\u0131 \u015firketin i\u015f\u00e7isi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sigortas\u0131z olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlay\u0131nca daval\u0131 \u015firketi SGK’ya \u015fikayet etti\u011fini, bu \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n ve ayr\u0131ca i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131 oldu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini feshettikten bir y\u0131l sonra daval\u0131 \u015firketin m\u00fcvekkiline ihtarname yollayarak tahsil etti\u011fi 23.000,00 TL’yi \u00fczerinde tutmakla su\u00e7lad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 \u015firketin i\u015f\u00e7ilerinden zarar\u0131 teminat alt\u0131na almak amac\u0131yla imzal\u0131 bo\u015f senetler al\u0131p elinde tuttu\u011funu, senedi kullanmak i\u00e7in kullan\u0131lan nedenin ise g\u00fcveni k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanmaya y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011funu, bunun ger\u00e7ek d\u0131\u015f\u0131 bir durum oldu\u011funu, su\u00e7laman\u0131n ve zarar miktar\u0131n\u0131n ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn daval\u0131 \u015firket \u00fczerinde oldu\u011funu belirterek davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya borcu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespiti ve daval\u0131 aleyhine bonoda yaz\u0131l\u0131 miktar\u0131n % 20’si oran\u0131nda k\u00f6t\u00fcniyet tazminat\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B) Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
\nDaval\u0131 vekili, g\u00f6rev itiraz\u0131 yan\u0131nda borcun, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u015firket aleyhine zimmetinde para tutmas\u0131 nedeniyle do\u011fdu\u011funu, … 1. Noterli\u011finde d\u00fczenlenen 13.10.2011 tarih ve 09603 yevmiye nolu ihtarnamede belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere davac\u0131n\u0131n \u015firketin m\u00fc\u015fterilerinden tahsil etti\u011fi 23.000,00 TL’yi \u015firkete teslim etmeyerek ma\u011fduriyete yol a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n ihtarnameden sonra \u015firkete gelerek borcunu kabul etti\u011fini ve borcu \u00f6demek i\u00e7in uygun bir s\u00fcre talep etti\u011fini, bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7in alaca\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131 senet d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde borcunu \u00f6dememesi nedeniyle senedin icra takibine konuldu\u011funu, i\u015f\u00e7ilerden imzal\u0131 bo\u015f senet ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
C) Yerel Mahkeme Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
\nMahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 \u015firkette sipari\u015f g\u00f6revlisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131, m\u00fc\u015fterilerden tahsil etti\u011fi bir k\u0131s\u0131m paray\u0131 \u015firkete teslim etmeyerek g\u00fcveni k\u00f6t\u00fcye kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, dava konusu olup … \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’n\u00fcn 2013\/2603 esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda takibe konulan 23.000,00 TL tutarl\u0131 senedin davac\u0131n\u0131n verdi\u011fi zarar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu, yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesine g\u00f6re, m\u00fc\u015fteriler taraf\u0131ndan beyan ve imza edilmi\u015f olan mutabakat mektuplu cari hesap ekstrelerine g\u00f6re davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 \u015firkete teslim etmedi\u011fi tutar\u0131n toplam\u0131n\u0131n 9.990,15 TL oldu\u011fu, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla senedin 13.009,85 TL\u2019lik k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
D) Temyiz:
\nKarar\u0131 taraf vekilleri temyiz etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
E) Gerek\u00e7e:<\/p>\n
1.Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara toplanan delillerle karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanuni gerektirici sebeplere g\u00f6re, daval\u0131n\u0131n t\u00fcm davac\u0131n\u0131n a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
2. Ticaret Hukuku h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine dayal\u0131 senetlerin, teminat kayd\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011finde, poli\u00e7e, bono veya \u00e7ek olsun vasf\u0131n\u0131 kaybetti\u011fi, ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilinmektedir. \u0130\u015f\u00e7i ve i\u015fverenin taraf olduklar\u0131 i\u015f ili\u015fkisinde ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta i\u015fe girerken, baz\u0131 i\u015f kollar\u0131nda i\u015fverenin teminat amac\u0131 ile bu t\u00fcr senetler ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 uygulama ile anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ku\u015fkusuz bu durumun kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 halinde bu \u015fekilde al\u0131nan senet, teminat senedi niteli\u011finde say\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131ca senet malen kayd\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011finde, senedin mal kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmedi\u011fi daval\u0131 taraf\u0131nda savunuldu\u011funda senedin ihdas nedeni talil etti\u011finden (sebep de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011finden) ispat y\u00fck\u00fc yer de\u011fi\u015ftirece\u011finden, daval\u0131 senedi talil etti\u011fi neden kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 verdi\u011fini ispat etmelidir.<\/p>\n
\u0130\u015f\u00e7iden teminat olarak al\u0131nan senet sebebiyle i\u015f\u00e7inin borcu, i\u015fverene verdi\u011fi zarar miktar\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131d\u0131r. Zarar\u0131 i\u015fveren ispatlamal\u0131d\u0131r. Teminat niteli\u011finde al\u0131nan bu senetler i\u015fverenin zarar\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130\u015f\u00e7iden teminat olarak al\u0131nan senet sebebiyle i\u015f\u00e7inin ve kefilin borcu, i\u015fverene verdi\u011fi zarar miktar\u0131 ile s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131d\u0131r. \u0130\u015f\u00e7inin, i\u015fverene verdi\u011fi zarar senet bedelinden az ise senet bedelinden, zarar miktar\u0131 mahsup edilmeli kalan miktar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden i\u015f\u00e7inin bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitine karar verilmelidir. Bu mahsubun yap\u0131labilmesi i\u00e7in, i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015fverene verdi\u011fi zarar\u0131n tespit edilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
Di\u011fer taraftan 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK.\u2019un 282. Maddesi uyar\u0131nca H\u00e2kim, bilirki\u015finin oy ve g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc di\u011fer delillerle birlikte serbest\u00e7e de\u011ferlendirir. K\u0131saca bilirki\u015fi raporu hakimi ba\u011flamaz. Hakim raporu di\u011fer delillerle birlikte de\u011ferlendirir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc bilirki\u015fi raporu takdiri bir delildir ve hakim bu takdiri delili serbest\u00e7e takdir eder. Hakim, bilirki\u015fi raporunu serbest\u00e7e takdir eder, bilirki\u015fi raporunu yeter derecede kanaat verici bulmazsa, bilirki\u015fiden ek rapor isteyebilir veya yeni bir bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131rabilir.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fine g\u00f6re davac\u0131 daval\u0131 \u015firkette sat\u0131\u015f temsilcisi olarak \u015firketin \u00fcr\u00fcnlerini satm\u0131\u015f bir anlamda pazarlamac\u0131l\u0131k s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Davac\u0131dan i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalan\u0131rken, sat\u0131lan \u00fcr\u00fcnlerde arac\u0131l\u0131k yap\u0131p, \u00fcr\u00fcn bedelini \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerden daval\u0131 ad\u0131na tahsil edece\u011finden, i\u015fveren taraf\u0131ndan bu bedellerin garanti alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in teminat senedi al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Mahkemece bu y\u00f6nde yap\u0131lan de\u011ferlendirme sabittir. Teminat senedinin tahsil etti\u011fi bedeli i\u015fverene vermemesi nedeni ile yedinde kalan miktar kadar teminat senedi ge\u00e7erlidir. Ancak bunun i\u00e7in davac\u0131 sat\u0131\u015f temsilcisinin sat\u0131lan \u00fcr\u00fcn bedelini teslim ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair kay\u0131t olmas\u0131 gerekir. M\u00fc\u015fteriler taraf\u0131ndan tek tarafl\u0131 olarak haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015f ve daval\u0131 i\u015fverene verilmi\u015f imzal\u0131 mutabakat mektuplu cari hesap ekstrelerine g\u00f6re davac\u0131ya elden teslim edildi\u011fi belirtilerek zarar\u0131n tespiti yerinde de\u011fildir. Burada a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a davac\u0131n\u0131n satt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fcr\u00fcn bedelini tahsil etti\u011fine dair m\u00fc\u015fterilere verilmi\u015f makbuzlar ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. M\u00fc\u015fterinin i\u015fverenle tek tarafl\u0131 olarak \u00fcr\u00fcn bedelini elden davac\u0131ya \u00f6dedi\u011fine dair mutabakat mektuplar\u0131na itibar edilemez. Bu nedenle davac\u0131ya kay\u0131tlara g\u00f6re teslim edilmi\u015f \u00fcr\u00fcn bedelleri belirlenmeli ve belgelendirilen zarar\u0131 kadar teminat senedinin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu kabul edilmelidir. Tek tarafl\u0131 elden \u00f6dendi\u011fi beyanlar\u0131na itibar edilerek zarar\u0131n belirlenmesi hatal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
F) Sonu\u00e7:<\/p>\n
Temyiz olunan karar\u0131n, yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebepten dolay\u0131 BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine 15.11.2017 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 01\/11\/2017 tarihli, 2017\/6563 E., 2017\/17139 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile 15.11.2017 tarihli, 2015\/24338 E., 2017\/18249 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 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2017\/6563 E., 2017\/17139 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130\u015e MAHKEMES\u0130 DAVA : Davac\u0131lar, … 9. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/8611 Esas Say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda icra takibine konu senetlerin teminat senedi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle … 9. \u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/8611 Esas Say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131na konu senetten dolay\u0131 bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131klar\u0131na dair karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Yerel mahkemece, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. H\u00fck\u00fcm s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 avukat\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015f olmakla, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I A) Davac\u0131 \u0130steminin \u00d6zeti: Davac\u0131lar vekili, davac\u0131lardan …’\u0131n daval\u0131 \u015firkette t\u0131r \u015fof\u00f6r\u00fc oldu\u011funu, i\u015fe ba\u015flarken teminat olarak 1 adet 2000 Euro, 1 adette 10.000 Euro’luk 2 ayr\u0131 senet imzalad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 …’a da senetlere kefil olarak imzalat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, senetlerin teminat senedi oldu\u011funu, \u00fczerinde de teminat senedi ibaresinin yaz\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a teminat senedidir yaz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131n yok edilerek bor\u00e7 senedi haline d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ve … 9.\u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/8611 esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131yla icra takibi ba\u015flatt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, senetlerin teminat senedi olmas\u0131 nedeniyle … 9.\u0130cra M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 2013\/8611 esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131na konan senetten dolay\u0131 davac\u0131lar\u0131n bor\u00e7lu olmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespitine karar verilmesini talep edilmi\u015ftir. B) Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti: Daval\u0131 vekili, teminat senedi ibaresinin bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n kambiyo senedine \u00f6zg\u00fc yolla …<\/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-94777","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n