The Concept of Legal Benefit:
HMK No. 6100, which entered into force on 01.10.2011.114th of’ in the article, the legal benefit has been accepted as a condition of the lawsuit. A person whose right has been violated may apply to the court as a plaintiff and request legal protection. However, in order for the plaintiff to claim legal protection, he must have a benefit worthy of protection. The fact that the plaintiff has the right to a lawsuit is not enough for him to seek legal protection from the court. The person filing a lawsuit must also have a legal benefit in filing a lawsuit. As a rule, it is assumed that there is a legal benefit in criminal cases and eda cases. The plaintiff is not obliged to inform and prove that he has a legal advantage in such cases. However, in case of doubt, the subject of examination is made whether there is a legal benefit or not. In the meantime, in detection cases, the plaintiff should have a legal benefit in opening the case in the case of decriminalization. The plaintiff must inform, explain and, if necessary, prove that he has a legal interest in filing a case of misrepresentation 1. If the plaintiff cannot prove that he has a legal interest in filing a case of self-determination, the case should be dismissed on the grounds that there is no legal benefit that is a condition of the lawsuit.
II. Conditions of Proof in the Case of Menfi Detection
If the plaintiff claims that the debtor claims that the debt in question does not exist and asks the court to determine that such a debt does not exist, in this case the defendant creditor is obliged to prove the existence of the receivable. If the plaintiff claims that the debtor is invalid due to one of the situations that cripple the will you will receive (mistake, trick, hit), then he is obliged to prove his claim in this case. If the debtor claims that the debt that he accepted for existence has expired for some reason, such as payment, then in this case, naturally, the burden of proof will fall on him . It can be seen that, as a rule, in a case of misappropriation, the burden of proving the existence of a legal relationship is on the defendant/creditor, and the creditor has to prove the existence of a legal relationship (debt). If the debtor has acknowledged the existence of a legal relationship, but has suggested that this legal relationship is a different relationship than the one seen in the deed, this time the burden of proving that the legal relationship is the relationship he has put forward falls on the plaintiff debtor. Because the plaintiff claims that the debtor accepts the existence of the deed, but does not rely on one legal relationship, but on another legal relationship ; basically, it recognizes the existence of a legal relationship.
“Supreme Court 20. HD. , 2019/2494 E. , 2019/3652 K. , T. 27.05.2019 ;”
‘CASE number 72 of the First ONE. it is necessary to evaluate the case based on the fact that the burden of proof is on the defendant, except for exceptional cases such as the fact that there is an interest detection case filed in accordance with the article and the interest detection case depends on the exchange deed. If the debtor denies the existence of the debt, in these cases the burden of proof falls on the creditor, although in the case of the defendant. If the debtor claims that the debt he accepts for existence has fallen for a reason such as payment, in this case, naturally, the burden of proof will fall on him.
It can be seen that, as a rule, in a case of misappropriation, the burden of proving the existence of a legal relationship is on the defendant/creditor, and the creditor has to prove the existence of a legal relationship (debt). For these reasons, the court ; plaintiff’s defendant/the following authority and obligation of the creditor to the principle of the objection is evaluated first, and the defendant subject is authorized to follow the executive proceeding with evidence that will prove the birthplace of the issue of the debt that must be taken into consideration , the parties should be decided according to the results of the evidence that will be collected when the burden of proof on the plaintiff that the way it is written with a wrong assessment of the case has been seen towards the denial decision.’’
As a result, as a rule, in a case of misappropriation in accordance with Article 72 of the first article, the burden of proof is on the defendant creditor and he must prove the existence of the debt. However, if the debt has become invalid for special reasons, that is, due to cases that cripple the will, the burden of proof must be shifted and the plaintiff must prove the existence of this situation to the debtor.
Registration of Property in the Stock Exchange – Case of Detection of Interest – Burden of Proof
The said registration in the exchange note means that the bond has been issued in exchange for a delivered good. In other words, the discoverer (the person who regulates the bond) says that I have delivered the goods and I am paying off the payment debt that is the equivalent of the goods with this bond.
Supreme
General Assembly of Law
Main No.: 2013/2402
“text of jurisprudence”
“At the end of the trial held due to the case of “decriminalization” between the parties; Denizli 3.01.02.2012 Days given by the Magistrate’s Court for the adoption of the case and E:2010/1442,
K:2012/92 upon the request of the deputies of the parties to examine the decision No. 19, the Supreme Court of Appeals.29.01.2013 Days of the Legal Department and E:2012/14275, K:2013/1601 with the numbered announcement;
(…The PLAINTIFFS’ attorney is N, whose clients are relatives of the defendant company..A..’either as a gift against invoice dated 06.04.2010 3.377,75 TL total cost for themselves, they also agreed to buy some stuff from 6.000 TL liking defendant in the amount of goods given to the defendant, and be subject to monitoring stock worth 6.000 TL, goods received as a gift in N. 06.04.2010.A.. that they were delivered to the defendant, but their client refused to take the goods that they wanted to take for themselves, notifying the defendant, 6.000 TL worth the deed in the hands of the respondent, though the debts of their clients 3.377 it is the price of goods sold,75-TL, return on equity and the statement that he would return this debt repayments over stock they weren’t on their clients, they received the gift of the part of the defendant to 1,900 TL debts arising from the goods they are paid back 1.477,7-TL debt remained, although the defendant based on years of 4.100 6.000 TL-TL liens outstanding balance has been received and Denizli remained as the decision of 7.That the Enforcement Directorate initiated a follow-up from the follow-up file 2010/9116, stating that his clients have only TL 1,477.75 debts due to the following deed and follow-up, he requested and sued to determine that they have no debts to the defendant from the requested TL 2,622.25 and to decide on 40% malpractice compensation against the defendant.
Defendant’s Attorney, his client invoice dated 18.05.2010 money selling goods to the plaintiffs, accordingly, the plaintiffs dated 15.07.2010 dated 18.05.2010 Editing payment of their debts by organizing the stock with a price 1.900 6.000 TL-TL’ s they pay, but the rest 4.100 TL’ s non-payment due to the enforcement proceedings initiated in respect of any payment or the amount owed plaintiffs claim that they are not written to prove that the goods have been returned with evidence, the burden of proof on the plaintiff, because any “malen” record found, stating that the goods were delivered first and then the deed was issued, he requested that the case be dismissed and 40% malice compensation be decided.
As a result of the trial conducted by the court, it was decided that the plaintiff’s debt as the principal creditor for the 6,000-TL promissory note dated 15.07.2010 was 1,477.75-TL (no 2,622.25-TL debt) in the case file subject to the case, there was no place for the defendant’s malice compensation because it could not be proved, the provision was appealed by the proxies of both parties.
The case is related to the determination that it is not owed due to the foreign exchange certificate, and there is a “malen” record on the bond. This situation constitutes a presumption that the goods have been delivered and it is necessary to prove the contrary in writing by the claimant. It was not considered correct to establish a written judgment on the grounds that the defendant creditor could not prove that the goods were delivered by making a mistake in determining the burden of proof by the court….”
In the bond in question of the case, the plaintiff … the discoverer, the defendant … is the beneficiary, and there is a “malen” record as the reason for the notification.
The bond is a promissory note containing an independent debt statement, and if a price record is available in the promissory note, the burden of proof belongs to the party arguing that the record is otherwise. In a concrete case, it is mandatory to accept that the promissory note has been instructed by both parties in the face of the statements of both parties that the bond is not equivalent to the goods, and in this case, TMK 6. and HMK’s 191. in accordance with the article, it should be recognized that the general rule that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff debtor of the promissory note will not change and the plaintiff must prove that the promissory note is free of charge.
In accordance with the rule of proof with the counter-deed in the year, the plaintiff-debtor must prove with written evidence that the bond placed on the follow-up is free of charge. As this cannot be understood from the text of the deed (bond) subject to follow-up, the plaintiffs have not provided written evidence to legally prove this claim to the file. Since the plaintiffs are the discoverer and guarantor of the deed (bond), and the defendant is the beneficiary, since the plaintiff, who is the party to the deed, is not the third party, he must prove the claim for non-payment not with a witness, but with written evidence in the manner prescribed by the procedure. Since the phrase “malen” is found on the bond subject to the case, the delivery of the goods on such a bond has been confirmed by the debtor. The creditor has no obligation to prove that he delivered it. In other words, the debtor is obliged to prove that the goods have not been delivered.
In this case, it is necessary to recognize that the bond subject to dispute and follow-up is legally valid. Then, since the plaintiff-debtor claims that the bond is free of charge, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs must prove this claim with written evidence.
