13. Law Office
Principal Number: 2017/1014
Decision Number: 2020/4488
“Islamic Text”
COURT: Civil Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial of the negative declaratory action between the parties, the file was examined and considered, upon the appeal of the parties’ lawyers within the time limit of the verdict given for the rejection of the original case in the original and the combined file, partial acceptance of the combined case, and partial rejection due to the reasons written in the verdict.
DECISION
In the main case, the plaintiff initiated the case against the defendant … 12. With the follow-up file of the Execution Directorate no. 2009/16466, … 15. Labor Court requested attorney’s fees due to dismissal from the attorney in the file numbered 2009/867, but that the defendant did not owe any debt to the defendant, 05. In order to determine that he was appointed as a proxy with the power of attorney dated /05/2009, he was dismissed due to the necessity determined by the injunction dated 08/10/2009, the cancellation of the premium debt accrued about the plaintiff by the SGK and the determination that the plaintiff is not indebted to the Social Security Institution. no., but the defendant was dismissed before even attending the first hearing of the case in question, the attorney fee requested was exorbitant, a portion of the attorney’s fee was paid to the persons he determined upon the instruction of the defendant, this issue was fixed by the correspondence between the parties, therefore, a debt was incurred due to the payments made. that there is no … 12. Enforcement Directorate It has been determined that it is not indebted to the defendant due to its file numbered 2009/16466 and requested that the defendant be sentenced to bad faith compensation. initiated by the defendant … 1. With the follow-up file of the Enforcement Directorate no. 2010/218 … 5. The Civil Court of First Instance requested attorney’s fees due to dismissal from the power of attorney in the file numbered 2008/112, and the defendant submitted a power of attorney since he was involved in the said file in the capacity of being notified on behalf of the company, however, he did not make any written statement and asserted that this file was not included in any of his hearings; It has been determined that he is not indebted to the defendant due to the debt subject to the follow-up file and requested that the defendant be sentenced to bad faith compensation.
Defendant; requested the dismissal of the case.
The court decided to dismiss the original lawsuit, to partially accept the combined lawsuit, and to determine that the defendant was not responsible for the amount of 37,071.00 TL due to the follow-up file numbered… The judgment was appealed by the parties.
1- In the examination of the appeal objections of the parties to the merged case; According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, legally compelling reasons and especially if there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, all appeal objections of the parties must be rejected.
2- In the examination of the plaintiff’s appeals against the main case; The plaintiff filed the case at hand for the determination that he is not in debt due to the enforcement proceedings initiated by the defendant lawyer for the collection of the attorney’s fee receivable. The court decided to reject the case based on the expert report. In the expert report; As it was determined that there was no written fee agreement between the parties, the attorney’s fee was calculated. However, in the e-mail correspondence dated 2.9.2009 sent to the plaintiff by the defendant lawyer; A breakdown of the lawsuit to be filed with SHK was made and it was stated that the information fee of 5,800.00 TL, 2,000,00 TL from the expert and the balance of 8,000,00 TL attorney’s fee remained, and this fee was requested to be paid. From the figure, it is understood that 2,000,00 TL was paid after the appeal petition was written, and it is understood that the e-mail correspondence specified by the court was not evaluated. In Article 199 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “Data such as written or printed text, promissory notes, drawings, plans, sketches, photographs, films, images or sound recordings, data in electronic media and similar information carriers are documents according to this Law.” is written. With this regulation, e-mail correspondences are also accepted as documents. In that case, the court should decide whether the plaintiff is indebted by evaluating the e-mail correspondence and the payments made by the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION: The rejection of all appeals of the parties against the unified case for the reason explained in the first paragraph above, the OVERFLOWING of the decision for the benefit of the plaintiff for the reasons explained in the second paragraph, 1.898.32 TL, as written below. The remaining fee is 25.20 TL from the appellant. It was unanimously decided on 10/06/2020 that the remaining fee be collected from the appellant, with the possibility of rectification within 15 days from the notification pursuant to Article 440/I of the Code of Civil Procedure.
