T.LAW DEPARTC.
SUPREME COURT
LAW DEPARTMENT
2016/19373
2017/11054
20.9.2017
* SIGNING A PROMISSORY NOTE ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY EVEN THOUGH HE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT (He Will Be Personally Responsible for Signing on Behalf of the Company / Since the Borrower Acting as an Unauthorized Representative is Responsible for the Bond as an Organizer, There is No Violation of the Law in Pursuing the Said Exchange Notes Through Foreclosure )
* CANCELLATION OF THE FOLLOW-UP (According to the Letter Reply from the Trade Registry Office, It is Understood that the Debtor Who is Being Followed is Not a Representative of the Company, But Does Not Have Representation Authority, the Trustee Who Signed the Promissory Note on Behalf of the Company that Issued the Debtor Bond Will Be Personally Responsible For the Signature He Made on Behalf of the Company / Since the Debtor Acting as an Unauthorized Representative is Responsible for the Bond as a Regulator, There is No Violation of the Law in the Pursuit of the Said Exchange Notes By Foreclosure )
* FOLLOW-UP THROUGH FORECLOSURE ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE NOTES (According to the Debtor’s Response to the Letter from the Trade Registry Office, It is Understood that He is Not a Representative of the Company, but He Does not Have Representation Authority, but the Trustee Who Signed the Promissory Note on Behalf of the Company that Issued the Debtor Bond Will Be Personally Responsible for the Signature He Made on Behalf of the Company that Issued the Bond)FOLLOW-UP THROUGH FORECLOSURE ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE NOTES (According to the Debtor’s Response to the Letter from the Trade Registry Office, It is Understood that He is Not a Representative of the Company, but He Does not Have Representation Authority, but the Trustee Who Signed the Promissory Note on Behalf of the Company that Issued the Debtor Bond Will Be Personally Responsible for the Signature He Made on Behalf of the Company that Issued the Bond)
6102/m.678,778/2
SUMMARY : In the concrete case, it was understood from the letter response received from the Trade Registry Office that the debtor against whom the follow-up was initiated by the creditor was not a representative of the company.UMMARY : In the concrete case, it was understood from the letter response received from the Trade Registry Office that the debtor against whom the follow-up was initiated by the creditor was not a representative of the company. In this case, it is of course that the trustee who signed the promissory note on behalf of the discovering company, even though he/she does not have representation authority, will be personally responsible for the signature he/she made on behalf of the issuing company of the promissory note. Since the debtor, who is acting as an unauthorized representative, is liable as the issuer due to the bill of exchange, there is no violation of the law in initiating a foreclosure proceeding specific to bills of exchange against the person in question.Since the debtor, who is acting as an unauthorized representative, is liable as the issuer due to the bill of exchange, there is no violation of the law in initiating a foreclosure proceeding specific to bills of exchange against the person in question.In that case, while the court should have decided to reject the appeal, the provision facility for cancellation of the follow-up with written justification is inappropriate.
CASE: Within the period of the court decision with the date and number written above, the audit of the appellant was sent to the apartment from the scene of the file related to this business upon request by the creditor, and the report prepared by the Audit Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined, and the necessity of the work was discussed and considered :
DECISION: In the follow-up initiated by the creditor through the foreclosure of exchange notes based on the bond, it was understood that the debtor requested the cancellation of the follow-up by claiming that he signed the bill on behalf of the company, that he was not personally indebted, that he had no debt, the court decided to cancel the follow-up on the debtor on the grounds that there were two signatures on the deed, both were on the stamp, and the debtor was not a company official, so he could not be held personally responsible for the signature contained in the bond.
Article 778/2 of the TCC. article (e) of Article 678 of the TCC, which must also be applied to bonds by sending a subparagraph.rticle 778/2 of the TCC. article (e) of Article 678 of the TCC, which must also be applied to bonds by sending a subparagraph. in the article; ”The person who puts his signature to a policy as a representative of a person, even though he does not have the right to representation, is personally responsible for that policy …” The provision is included.
In the concrete case, it was understood from the letter response received from the Trade Registry Office that the debtor against whom the follow-up was initiated by the creditor was not a representative of the company.he concrete case, it was understood from the letter response received from the Trade Registry Office that the debtor against whom the follow-up was initiated by the creditor was not a representative of the company. In this case, it is natural that the debtor who objects an the concrete case, it was understood from the letter response received from the Trade Registry Office that the debtor against whom the follow-up was initiated by the creditor was not a representative of the company. In this case, it is natural that the debtor who objects and signs a bill of exchange on behalf of the issuing company without having the authority to represent, will be personally liable for the signature he has made on behalf of the company that issued the bill of exchange. Since the debtor acting as an unauthorized representative is responsible for the bond in his capacity as a regulator, there is no violation of the law in pursuing the said exchange notes through foreclosure.
In that case, while the court should have decided to reject the appeal, the provision facility for cancellation of the follow-up with written justification is inappropriate.In that case, while the court should have decided to reject the appeal, the provision facility for cancellation of the follow-up with written justificahat case, while the court should have decided to reject the appeal, the provision facility for cancellation of the follow-up with written justification is inappropriate.
CONCLUSION : With the acceptance of the creditor’s appeals, the court’s d
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clinking here.